Photographing children

Paul H. wrote:

It's hard to say since most people who are guillotined are complete basket
cases. At least their heads are.

snort!

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

In article , says...
Unfortunately, even if the parents aren't charged, or convicted, just
the report of the incident will involve the state's child welfare people
who always work under the guilty until canonized a saint theory. People
often lose their children for months over such stupidity. IN one case I
recall that a clerk in a chain store reported a woman for pictures of
her son playing in the sprinkler in the back yard nude. The clerk said
'she took too many pictures (more than one roll) of the boy.' Amazing.
It is a shame that so many people feel that any exposure of the human
body constitutes a sexual display. Is the pedophile who gets a sexual
thrill from these pictures worse than the person who sees them as sexual
but considers them evil? They seem the same to me.

As for the digital image issue. This one will never stand the test of
the first amendment protections since it doesn't fit the test of causing
harm to anyone to offset any loss of freedom to others, an old test for
such issues.

The real problem is defining what is (in Texas law 'provocative') as
what may be such to one is not to another. I have an old picture of one
of my nieces in a VERY modest swimsuit that is, nevertheless, quite
'provocative' because that is what she was trying to BE (and succeeded).
But there is nothing 'sexual' about the picture, and nothing immodest
in it. Frankly, I have never seen a picture of her from age 8 on that
WASN'T provocative. She is just that way.


--
Ron Hunter



What you say is true, the stigma lasts longer than the headlines, and parents
can be separated from their children at the whim of some old "holier than
thou" ****head at the corner Photo service.

Such is life in the Poiliticaly Correct world.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Ken Tough wrote:

wrote:

Ken Tough wrote:
A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.

Please don't confuse us with the French.

The death penalty is outlawed by the European Convention on
Human Rights (protocol 13).

--

We have never used the guillotine as far as I know.

As far as protocol 13, what do you do with your serial killers?


And why do you have a category of crime called 'hot home invasion
burglery'.

A discussion of the mindset of your people can be found he

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/...ns/UK/2004/12/

Let us not forget that during WWII your ancestors had to ask us pretty
please to send arms since you seemed to have gotten rid of yours.

I figure all hope is not lost, your country can lay claim to Sir
Winston Churchill and Lady Thatcher.

Wes







--
The Constitution wasn't perfect but it sure beats
what we have now.

wrote:

Ken Tough wrote:

A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.
Please don't confuse us with the French.
The death penalty is outlawed by the European Convention on
Human Rights (protocol 13).

We have never used the guillotine as far as I know.

Oh, I get you. Well I was using "return" in the historical sense.
Like a return to Victorian values.

As far as protocol 13, what do you do with your serial killers?

Keep them locked up, generally.

And why do you have a category of crime called 'hot home invasion
burglery'.

Never heard of it, but if it is true, it's because of creeping
americanisation in government policy.

Let us not forget that during WWII your ancestors had to ask us pretty
please to send arms since you seemed to have gotten rid of yours.

Used them up during the three years of defending europe before the
US was dragged into the war by the Japanese.

I figure all hope is not lost, your country can lay claim to Sir
Winston Churchill and Lady Thatcher.

And shipping off all the n'eer-do-wells to Australia (and the
other minor colonies).

--
Ken Tough

wrote:

Ken Tough wrote:

A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.
Please don't confuse us with the French.
The death penalty is outlawed by the European Convention on
Human Rights (protocol 13).

We have never used the guillotine as far as I know.

Oh, I get you. Well I was using "return" in the historical sense.
Like a return to Victorian values.

As far as protocol 13, what do you do with your serial killers?

Keep them locked up, generally.

And why do you have a category of crime called 'hot home invasion
burglery'.

Never heard of it, but if it is true, it's because of creeping
americanisation in government policy.

Let us not forget that during WWII your ancestors had to ask us pretty
please to send arms since you seemed to have gotten rid of yours.

Used them up during the three years of defending europe before the
US was dragged into the war by the Japanese.

I figure all hope is not lost, your country can lay claim to Sir
Winston Churchill and Lady Thatcher.

And shipping off all the n'eer-do-wells to Australia (and the
other minor colonies).

--
Ken Tough

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:55:26 +0200, Ken Tough
wrote:

And why do you have a category of crime called 'hot home invasion
burglery'.

Never heard of it, but if it is true, it's because of creeping
americanisation in government policy.

I love this!
"I don't know what this is, but it's your fault!"
:-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill wrote:

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:55:26 +0200, Ken Tough
And why do you have a category of crime called 'hot home invasion
burglery'.

Never heard of it, but if it is true, it's because of creeping
americanisation in government policy.

I love this!
"I don't know what this is, but it's your fault!"

No, it's the Blair government's fault. They'd wear bling and sing
hip-hop in parliament if they thought it would buy votes.


"Home invasion" is an american term, and an inflamatory one created by
the media, at that. "Break-in" has always been perfectly acceptable.


--
Ken Tough

Big Bill wrote:

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:55:26 +0200, Ken Tough
And why do you have a category of crime called 'hot home invasion
burglery'.

Never heard of it, but if it is true, it's because of creeping
americanisation in government policy.

I love this!
"I don't know what this is, but it's your fault!"

No, it's the Blair government's fault. They'd wear bling and sing
hip-hop in parliament if they thought it would buy votes.


"Home invasion" is an american term, and an inflamatory one created by
the media, at that. "Break-in" has always been perfectly acceptable.


--
Ken Tough

Ken Tough wrote:
wrote:


Ken Tough wrote:


A heck of a trick. Maybe some american states could be convinced
to return to the guillotine and we'll find out.

Please don't confuse us with the French.

The death penalty is outlawed by the European Convention on
Human Rights (protocol 13).


We have never used the guillotine as far as I know.


Oh, I get you. Well I was using "return" in the historical sense.
Like a return to Victorian values.


As far as protocol 13, what do you do with your serial killers?


Keep them locked up, generally.


And why do you have a category of crime called 'hot home invasion
burglery'.


Never heard of it, but if it is true, it's because of creeping
americanisation in government policy.


Let us not forget that during WWII your ancestors had to ask us pretty
please to send arms since you seemed to have gotten rid of yours.


Used them up during the three years of defending europe before the
US was dragged into the war by the Japanese.


I figure all hope is not lost, your country can lay claim to Sir
Winston Churchill and Lady Thatcher.


And shipping off all the n'eer-do-wells to Australia (and the
other minor colonies).

Who helped to pull your limey asses out of the crack twice in the
previous century. Looks like those 'ne'er do wells' did QUITE well.


--
Ron Hunter

Ken Tough wrote:
Big Bill wrote:


On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:55:26 +0200, Ken Tough

And why do you have a category of crime called 'hot home invasion
burglery'.


Never heard of it, but if it is true, it's because of creeping
americanisation in government policy.

I love this!
"I don't know what this is, but it's your fault!"


No, it's the Blair government's fault. They'd wear bling and sing
hip-hop in parliament if they thought it would buy votes.


"Home invasion" is an american term, and an inflamatory one created by
the media, at that. "Break-in" has always been perfectly acceptable.



While the terminology has changed, so has the way it seems to be done,
lately. Most burglars just sneak in, take what they want when they are
pretty sure you aren't home, and leave, quietly. 'Home invasion'
criminals break in HOPING to find someone home to intimidate, torture,
abuse, rape, and maybe kill, THEN they steal what they want.


--
Ron Hunter