NO action is to be taken against a photographer accused of “blasphemy” and “trespassing” at St Michael Penkivel Church in Cornwall following an “illegal” photoshoot featuring “semi-naked models cavorting around a graveyard and inside the church”.
One of Andy Craddock's church pictures
One photo, according to this report, featured two models, called Kate and Bex, fondling each other on a cloth-draped altar, while another showed a partially-clothed woman lying on a grave.
The Diocese of Truro launched legal action in July against St Austell-based photographer Andy Craddock, 43, for trespass and not having permission to take photographs.
It also accused him of blasphemy – despite the laws being abolished under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act in May 2008.
A solicitor’s letter from Reverend Andrew Yates at the church ordered him to remove the photos from his website within 24 hours, and
Begin destruction of all copies of the images in your possession or under your control.
But Craddock – who takes erotic fetish snaps during secret photoshoots at churches across the UK – ignored the letter and calls from the church’s solicitors, Michelmores.
He claimed they were powerless to stop him, and defended the photos as art.
The 13th century church – which was used in Rowan Atkinson’s 2005 comedy Keeping Mum, about a serial-killer in a quiet village – has now dropped the case.
Jeremy Dowling, a spokesman for the Diocese of Truro, told Sky News Online:
People in the locality where he lives are not best pleased with him, and nor are the church. But the case has been dropped. We thought it would be better to do that rather than give Mr Craddock continued publicity.
He predictably added:
If he had done the same thing, say in a mosque for instance, all hell would have been let loose… he probably wouldn’t have just got a letter.
Andy Craddock
Craddock told Sky:
I can see how my photos could cause offence, but I think they would only be an offence to a minority of people. It’s a difficult thing, it may be a bit twee, but historically artists have offended people. Van Gogh painted prostitutes … and Banksy sprays stuff on public buildings.
He added:
But I don’t like the way the church went about their complaint. If Andrew Yates had sat down with me, face-to-face, I would have listened to him. I think it shows a level of cowardice hiding behind a solicitor, it’s not the sort of openness I’d expect from a man of God.
Read an extract of the solicitor’s extraordinary letter to Mr Craddock below:
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
September 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am
A few snaps of lovely ladies in their skimpies is nothing compared to the weird shit that goes on in these rural churches.
When I was a kid I snuck into one just to see what went on. What I saw still gives me nightmares; a life-size statue of a nearly naked bloke nailed to a plank, half the village taking part in a simulated blood drinking ritual, and Mr Hoskins playing with his organ!
Weird or what!
September 7th, 2009 at 10:10 am
As much as I enjoy looking at erotica – indeed I've created vast amounts of the stuff myself – As a photographer & filmmaker, (& tutor) I always get location permission & individual forms – so I never fall foul of copyright or ownership issues
Legally he's been a bit cheeky – and as a responsible tutor – I can't condone that kind of cockiness.
But – on the plus side = it's annoyed the church. So I approve.
Also – It's clearly NOT pornographic. It has got him lots of publicity too – so at least the church has helped in that respect. The pics aren't half bad either – though that is more to do with the women rather than his compositional skills.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Fatwa envy, one of christianity's least attractive features…
September 7th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I think this bloke has been a bit discourteous but nothing more, of course the Church has been silly enough to draw attention to it thus ensuring loads of copycat incidents. When you think how the church is happy to let murder scenes and the like be filmed on it's premises you have to wonder why a few pretty girls causes a fuss. They have a point about the mosques though, maybe someone should do some erotic Hijab shots, that should be fun.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:58 am
When I was a kid we used to have the News of the World and the Sunday Pictorial, remigius. I used to be up early on Sunday mornings, and was an avid reader, and I can assure you that even worse things than those you allude to went on in these hallowed buidings!
September 7th, 2009 at 11:41 am
As far as trespassing goes they may have a case, but reading the 'blasphemy' section of that letter only reinforces what a nonsense that law always was. An erotic pose and ornamental gravestone in the same frame a crime? Stained glass and miniskirts snapped together illegal?
Its Evangelical Correctness gone mad!
September 7th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I don't get it. Is this public property? If not, why does this guy think he can use it for just any old thing he wants? In fact, you can't even use public property for any old thing you want.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Well, he got himself some free publicity, though he does look like a bit of an arty twat. Now do some in a mosque, I dare you!
September 7th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
have you looked at the photos section on the link? topless woman sitting in the font and a bottomless guy in the pulpit… the photographer was probably trying to be blasphemous, but imho that's not such a bad thing!
September 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Not half as good as Franke Howerd's bare-bottomed vicar! ("Ooh, no, don't, please!!")
September 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Not half as good as Frankie Howerd's bare-bottomed vicar! ("Ooh, no, don't, please!!")
September 7th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
You don't really have to do anything to Andy Craddock to get Add Randy Cock!
(He already sounds like a character from Round The Horne, though they'd have probably christened him "Randy Addcock!!)
September 7th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
He does look a right c*nt, though.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I doubt if a prosecution for trespass would be successful given that churches are usually left unlocked and public buildings. Furthermore, many people who have an interest in church architecture, brass rubbing and stained glass windows happily click away with their cameras – I doubt if any of them have sought permission.
Mr Dowling’s comment “If he had done the same thing, say in a mosque for instance, all hell would have been let loose… he probably wouldn't have just got a letter” demonstrates that the xtains are prepared to copy the muzzies bully and bomb technique.
BTW I thought the photographs rather good.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
'If he had done the same thing, say in a mosque for instance…' is a piece of meaningless crap. We all know what a church looks like. It has certain connotations – whether they be Dennis Wheatley or John Betjeman. A mosque or other non-Christian temple has no cultural baggage and would be no more useful as a background to a bit of soft porn than Hugh Hefner's mansion (i.e. quite useful, but not that striking).
As for threatening people with the non-crime of blasphemy, well, no surprises there. Imaginary punishments are the specialty of the godly.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I thought the photo a bit tame – almost the level of saucy seaside postcard. Poor composition though.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:39 am
Well i'd start going to church if the person at the front always looked like that fine young lady in the photo!
September 8th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Erm…. why are the solicitors banging on about blasphemy being an 'indictable offence'? It was removed from the statute books last year. Or are they just being bullying twats?
As Angela pointed out, many people enter churches for reasons wholly unrelated to worship, and don't get solicitor's letters for it.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I think there might be a slight difference between entering churches" for reasons wholly unrelated to worship" and entering churches in explicit violation of their purposes. And in any case, it's up to the principals of the church to decide whether an activity can be conducted there or not. So we're not talking blasphemy, per se; we're talking about private property being used without consent and in violation of its purpose.
September 9th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I know I'm a little late with this one but as a photographer I've read up on the law when it comes to taking photos. It is perfectly legal to take photos on private property unless a condition of entering onto that property is that no photography is allowed. In other words if there was no one around to tell him that photographs can't be taken (which it sounds like there wasn't) and there was no sign expressly saying photography isn't allowed then he is perfectly entitled to take photos on private land open to the public.
September 9th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
the problem with these crispos is their just sexually repressed! get over it and have a wank for christ already!
September 11th, 2009 at 12:29 am
in all fairness, a museum is a public place too, and a library, but you wouldn't be able to walk in and take fetish photo shoots there either.