This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| Sat 1 Aug 09, 6:22 PM Backdooruk UK(BA), 12 yrs  |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8179... I think these are the photographs in question: http://www.neolestat.com/neolestat_church.htm - Chris This is my voice, my weapon of choice | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 6:28 PM Inks07 UK(BL), 4 yrs |
I quite like these not bad at all. In reference to the story, when was the last time anyone was prosecuted under blasphemy? Lets ignore for a moment the fact that a religious law in itself is stupid, pointless and annoying. As far as I am concerned, if the building was rented or asked to be used by the this guy and they consented then fine. Game Over. If he misrepresented himself and his intentions then maybe he could be brought to book for that, but not for fucking blasphemy of all things. | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 6:33 PM phoenixlove UK(NW), 4 yrs £  |
nice photographs, wrong location | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 6:49 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
Having blasphemy as a criminal record would be way cool  Anyone know of any actual convicted blasphemers out there??? And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 6:55 PM godofallgods123 UK(SN), 4 yrs |
Im a professional Photographer and there are general rules that should be applied for all shoots, plus further thought when erotic. I think this is going too far. These are peoples graves. I would be going mad if I found somebody had used a family grave for an erotic shoot, simply very disrespectful. Would he have photographed at any other place of worship or burial. | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 6:57 PM PrudeRaglan UK(SW), 2 yrs |
Link includes : "By anyone's reasonable standards of decency this is beyond the pale." I heartily agree.
Keep it decent - you know it makes sense! | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 7:26 PM jstripes  UK(KT), 7 yrs |
It was highly disrespectful and will be highly offensive to religious people and the relatives of those buried in the church yard. What we as individuals feel about it is irrelevant. Those of us who aren't particularly religious and don't have dead relatives on the premises may not be that much bothered personally, but please do show a little understanding for the feelings of others. In the circumstances the Church of England is being quite moderate in its response. Imagine the uproar if they had done that in a mosque. There'd be riots, fatwas from Ayotolahs, and the pair of them would need round the clock police protection Salman Rushdie style. | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 7:31 PM emark UK, 9 yrs |
Newsflash ... Blasphemy was decriminalised in the UK in 2008 (about the only good part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). I don't know what their legal threats are really based on, but "blasphemy" has no relevance in law anymore, thankfully. There are some pics on the Daily Mail, of all places - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203464/... (typical Daily Mail - let's publish the photos on a widely read site, so that their readers can whine about how awful it is to take such photoes...) Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18. | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 7:36 PM emark UK, 9 yrs |
 How do you know that relatives of dead people are offended? I have dead relatives, and I'm offended by blasphemy laws. If there are laws about not photographing in cemetaries out of fear of upsetting relatives, they should apply to all, I feel. If there aren't, then their legal threats should have no basis. Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18. Edited 1 Aug 09, 7:37 PM by emark | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 8:41 PM masterkim UK(BS), 7 yrs |
Craddock you plonka. You should have gone to any number of ex-churches (churches that have been decomissioned) and you would have had no problems.
The photographer was both lazy and cheap - I think.
A kiss is just a kiss, but a whiplash lasts until morning. | ||
| 1 Aug 09, 8:43 PM redcat 9 yrs |
i can see both sides of this, the perceived lack of respect for religious beliefs....versus...the freedom of artistic expression blahdy blah having now looked at the set i come down firmly on the fence....some of the pics i dont find at all offensive...holding your tits in a graveyard...ok. Sitting in a church in just a fur coat...fine. The point where i start getting a bit uncomfortable is where they are interacting with religious iconography and climbing on things like fonts and pulpit rails. By all means do a shoot of crosses pointing at crotches...indeed fuck the cross if you like.... but not in a church. And climbing on medieval stuff.....well its just a bit crass and vandalistic. Its not the religious element its the venerable oldness of stuff. Had the photo set been a tad more tasteful and a little less crass i like to think permission would have been granted anyway...but i also admit thats an unrealistic expectation of reasonableness. These pics dont feel like they are out to shock particulary (if they are they are feeble).... they just feel...crass. Our distaste probably comes from many places....as a personal exercise hows about thinking about the same pictures done in a primary school...or a bus station... for some people the juxtaposition of church and sexuality is just wrong....and that says as much about some peoples attitudes towards sex as it does about their attitudes around religion. Sorry this has become a ramble.... i think in summary...i find the crassness of these photos far more objectionable than any perceived insult on any religious beliefs. |
