DPP to consider charging Henson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I can't agree with you. It is only "unnatural" to the extent we allow a small minority of deviants to dictate our attitudes. "Today's society" is a catch phrase used to mean whatever the speaker wants, usually to justify a suppression of freedom or the overturning of previous restrictions - it is used both ways and hence is meaningless.

It is certainly not unnatural in any real meaning of the word, "contrary to nature".

I am not sure you mean by "it has to be in the childs interest not the photographer and not the art lovers" - this would seem to mean that any art has to be in the interest of the child, which could apparently condemn almost any depiction of children in art, an opinion that would hardly gain much support, and even if it does, should it be extended to all aspects of life, not just art?

It is not saying art has to be in the best interest of the child it is saying that art has to never harm the child portrayed in the picture. If I understand what your saying is that it can never conjure a negative image of a child? Do I think I child should not be hurt whilst putting art together? Well, yes i certainly think they should not.

And for that matter, if, in your opinion, neither the child nor the parents are a judge of "the child's best interests", bearing in mind that the model and parents have apparently all approved this photography, and continue to do so, who is to be the judge of the child's best interest? And who appointed this person?

John

---

They say pedophilia and aphebophilia is natural. But it is still not in the best interest of a child. This is an extreme example but one which I believe needs to be brought in to this.

As far as judging the childrens best interest- it is common place for the parents not to be able to judge the best interest of the child. Parents often think of themselves or other parties before the child. The fact is children can not always judge what is best for them hence having parents or other carers such as and I hope docs in this case.

Xav

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drivesafe

The problem is that these pictures are of a child in sexial poses.

My gripe is more with the child's carers not some dirty old man with a camera.

Just how much is mum and dad going to get when the dirty old man sells the child porn?

---

If these were sexual poses, there is no way that the Office of Film and Literature Classification (not sure I have got the name right!) would have approved them, regardless of whether they had bits blanked out or not.

You may have a gripe with the child's carer's but unless there is something that has not appeared in the press, which in view of the media muckraking that has gone on seems unlikely, I will be very surprised if there is any case for anyone to answer.

If you believe the law should be changed so that there is, it is your right to say so, and to campaign for it. But I should point out that the exhibition was in NSW, and the photos apparently taken in Victoria, whereas I understand you are in Queensland.

Whether the photos constitute good art or not, I don't venture an opinion on. But all the evidence I have seen suggests that they are not pornographic, and this may possibly be tested in court; although this seems increasingly unlikely - if there was any case to answer, I would have expected charges to have already been laid.

Obviously we are not going to agree on this, so I see little point in further discussion, as we would both be just repeating ourselves.

John

I don't know about anyone else, but 124 posts on a thread that has nothing to do with Land Rovers, Land Rover Owners or four wheel driving is too much for me! :nazilock:

Diana :mad: :mad: :mad:

Quote:

---

Enough Is Enough!
I don't know about anyone else, but 124 posts on a thread that has nothing to do with Land Rovers, Land Rover Owners or four wheel driving is too much for me! :nazilock:

Diana :angry: :angry: :angry:

---

Boy oh boy does that annoy me :p, you have been involved in many many threads that had absolutely nothing to do with LRS/4WDing? etc, just cause you don't want to get involved dont bother posting, its a frickin insult to the people who have taken the time to post whether this thread or any other. And for your reference:

General Chat Almost anything goes, have a look and drop in a few lines. Think of it as a campfire chat, furthermore current threads in General 25, 10 are about/ related to 4WDing..LRS ( at time of posting)

Regards

Stevo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo68

Boy oh boy does that annoy me :p, you have been involved in many many threads that had absolutely nothing to do with LRS/4WDing? etc, just cause you don't want to get involved dont bother posting, its a frickin insult to the people who have taken the time to post whether this thread or any other. And for your reference:

General Chat Almost anything goes, have a look and drop in a few lines. Think of it as a campfire chat, furthermore current threads in General 25, 10 are about/ related to 4WDing..LRS ( at time of posting)

Regards

Stevo

---

So what is wrong with someone saying enough is enough - that is their view.

Just as you have said what u thought.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

If these were sexual poses, there is no way that the Office of Film and Literature Classification (not sure I have got the name right!) would have approved them, regardless of whether they had bits blanked out or not.

---

I read a description of the pic, and did see it I think in Google images, though it was removed from the linked website. The reason why the classification crowd have given it a G rating is because there is absolutely nothing sexual about it. If anybody thinks it is sexual, then they are really quite actively looking to find something sexual in it or about, because in my opinion, and obviously the classifiers, it is just not there. To me it actually looked like quite a dark and sad picture of a girl who had had some type of sadness or misfortune in her life.

Based on this, I now think this whole thread is just a storm in a tea cup really.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo68 https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...016/08/768.jpg


Boy oh boy does that annoy me :p, you have been involved in many many threads that had absolutely nothing to do with LRS/4WDing? etc, just cause you don't want to get involved dont bother posting, its a frickin insult to the people who have taken the time to post whether this thread or any other. And for your reference:

General Chat Almost anything goes, have a look and drop in a few lines. Think of it as a campfire chat, furthermore current threads in General 25, 10 are about/ related to 4WDing..LRS ( at time of posting)

Regards

Stevo

So what is wrong with someone saying enough is enough - that is their view.

Just as you have said what u thought.

Garry

---

Since you asked, I will tell you. Firstly that is not a view whatsoever. Typical of a few who at different times, jump into a thread, do not add to the actual content of the thread, but for whatever reason its not their cup of tea, feel they must say something, anything, and the old "Hey this has nothing to do with LR's is stale and boring". General Chat is just that, it can be about everything and anything, hence why it can be one of the most interesting parts of the forum. The fact there is 124 posts shows there has been a lot of interest and people have taken the time to express their points of view, experiences, and so forth so who the hell has the right to tell 20 plus people who have contributed...that enough is enough? Life isnt just about LR's. That aside absolutely nobody tells me enough is enough:twisted:, not now...not ever.

On topic

Quote:

---

I read a description of the pic, and did see it I think in Google images, though it was removed from the linked website. The reason why the classification crowd have given it a G rating is because there is absolutely nothing sexual about it. If anybody thinks it is sexual, then they are really quite actively looking to find something sexual in it or about, because in my opinion, and obviously the classifiers, it is just not there. To me it actually looked like quite a dark and sad picture of a girl who had had some type of sadness or misfortune in her life.

Based on this, I now think this whole thread is just a storm in a tea cup really.

---

Mate there were 41 pictures, not just one pic, in the gallery and on the website. If you think full frontal nudity of pre teens is a storm in a tea cup, then yikes. They have also had to black out the pictures they have shown. Obviously and sadly some folk here think that nude photos of pre teens is acceptable in however which way they are viewed.

Regards

Stevo

At the end of the day I'm not scared of them, not offended by them, in that context they're just a non event really. I dunno, you might think that its sad, but I think it's not much worthy of any great deal of comment and the censorship board think the same. Seeing a naked body may be a big deal and a big issue in some peoples life, it's just not in mine. I think that its sad that some people think that under all of these clothes that we wear that there is something to be scared of and to be ashamed of. I also think that it's sad that people have blown it up to be something that it just isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavie

As far as judging the childrens best interest- it is common place for the parents not to be able to judge the best interest of the child. Parents often think of themselves or other parties before the child. The fact is children can not always judge what is best for them hence having parents or other carers such as and I hope docs in this case.
Xav

---

I've noticed this a lot since we've had Rose. We've had some annoying comments and attempts a pressure from friends and family basically because we have decided to put her interests before our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slunnie

To me it actually looked like quite a dark and sad picture of a girl who had had some type of sadness or misfortune in her life.

---

Possibly ipso facto!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamo

Possibly ipso facto!

---

Yeah, I guess one never knows. :(