Comments on: C of E drops ‘blasphemy’ and ‘trespass’ case against fetish photographer http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/ The voice of atheism since 1881 Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:36:37 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ursula http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21644 Ursula Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:29:01 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21644 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. 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.

]]> By: doc gonzo http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21602 doc gonzo Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:02:38 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21602 the problem with these crispos is their just sexually repressed! get over it and have a wank for christ already! the problem with these crispos is their just sexually repressed! get over it and have a wank for christ already!

]]> By: David Lawson http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21598 David Lawson Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:34:54 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21598 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. 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.

]]> By: mikespeir http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21577 mikespeir Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:41:28 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21577 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. 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.

]]> By: Tim_Danaher http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21575 Tim_Danaher Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:36:46 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21575 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. 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.

]]> By: Neil http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21570 Neil Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:39:41 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21570 Well i'd start going to church if the person at the front always looked like that fine young lady in the photo! Well i'd start going to church if the person at the front always looked like that fine young lady in the photo!

]]> By: tony e http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21569 tony e Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:04:50 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21569 I thought the photo a bit tame - almost the level of saucy seaside postcard. Poor composition though. I thought the photo a bit tame – almost the level of saucy seaside postcard. Poor composition though.

]]> By: valdemar http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21566 valdemar Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:32:57 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21566 '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. '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.

]]> By: Angela_K http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21561 Angela_K Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:01:36 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21561 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. 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.

]]> By: mike http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/07/c-of-e-drops-%e2%80%98blasphemy%e2%80%99-and-%e2%80%98trespass%e2%80%99-case-against-fetish-photographer/comment-page-1/#comment-21558 mike Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:24:22 +0000 http://freethinker.co.uk/?p=8306#comment-21558 He does look a right c*nt, though. He does look a right c*nt, though.

]]>