cleanfeed and wikipedia

[Ian Batten]

On 13 Dec 2008, at 20:41, Ian Johnson wrote:

>
> On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 14:10 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> And who do you know with a stake in the IWF that's not discussing the
>> issue directly? The IWF themselves are sticking to their guns over  
>> their
>> initial classification, and almost no-one else has been on the  
>> training
>> course.
>
> We know how effective police training in this area is.
>
> See for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/26/artnews.art

And better:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=109397&sectioncode=26

One of the photographs is entitled `Jesse McBride', and shows a naked  
pre-pubescent boy.  There's a print in the Gugenheim, and Google will  
find it for you.

It's worth noting that when the CPS finally indicated two photographs  
in the seized book that might be subject to prosecution, this was not  
one of them.  Granted, the act under discussion was OPA not PoCA, but  
it seems unlikely under the circumstances (ie attempting to save face  
over a bungled raid, where the starting point was pictures of  
children) that all avenues wouldn't have been considered.

So this is a photograph of a child of a comparable age, taken in the  
same year, which as received the all-clear after a five-month CPS  
investigation.   The Guggenheim may provide an imprimatur rather  
smoother than The Scorpions, but Mapplethorpe has a substantial oeuvre  
of sexual photographs which inevitably colours ones judgement.   
Nonetheless, the CPS ruled it legal.

ian





>
>
> Now for this Nan Goldin image we have a CPS ruling so perhaps we could
> be far more confident it lies in the legal zone (despite the beliefs  
> of
> plod).

Similarly some fairly heavy-duty Mapplethorpe