|
Photo Rambles
By P.G. Ramblings
Tom and Jerry With No Added Sugar
Who are these people that
dictate how we run our lives, even censoring our
jokes, our photographs, our cartoons? Only last
year, because of a complaint that scenes showing
the cartoon characters smoking were not appropriate
for young viewers, Ofcom investigated and said: "We
note that, in Tom
and Jerry, smoking
usually appears in a stylised manner and is
frequently not condoned"
What! It's a cartoon! In real
life, cats and dogs don't really smoke roll-up
cigarettes or large cigars so in my opinion, any
parent who thinks such scenes are going to turn
their children into 50 a day chain smokers has got
serious physiological problems of their own. Saner
people have been locked up for saying less and
sadly, they haven't gone away you know. They're
back!
It's quite likely that a recent
news item sent fear through the massed ranks of
respectable professional child photographers
throughout the world and if it didn't, it should
have. The article in question was about complaints
made to the Advertising Standards Authority which
prompted a ruling that three photographs published
in the no
added sugar
children's clothes catalogue violated laws
concerned with responsible advertising, decency and
children. It went on to say that the catalogue
sexualised children and was allegedly now in much
demand by paedophiles in search of child
pornography.
One of the offending photos
seemingly showed a made up girl on all fours
perched on a chest of drawers with the caption "A
gentleman should never keep a lady waiting, and a
true lady should act like one" The ASA ruled this
to be offensive because it could be viewed as
sexually provocative.
The no added sugar
company has naturally said it was shocked at the
suggestion that its photographs had sexual
references.
My own personal view on this
issue is that people who see photos of children as
being sexual, are in actual fact, people who only
see children as sexual objects or to put it another
way, they are themselves - closet
perverts.
Just after listening to this
particular news story I had a browse through
several photographic portraiture books published in
the 1960s, 70s and 80s where I discovered quite a
few examples of child photography, many of which
were of naked children, most of whom appeared to be
no more than 10 years old. Imagine attempting to
publish a book with such photographs today or just
take your camera for a leisurely stroll along your
nearest beach, to a playground, sports facilities
or anywhere frequented by children, and in all
probability you'll be arrested.
True, there are perverts out
there posing as photographers and they are taking
indecent images of children and I do realise that
the word 'indecent' doesn't come close to
describing what these perverted sewer rats are
getting up to with kids but let's not get
hysterical and criminalize innocent photographers
as well. What's needed is vigorous enforcement of
the exisiting laws, throw convicted paedophiles in
prison and throw away the key but please, please,
please - stop the insanity and go read this article
by the highly entertaining Boris
Johnson
IndexPage
|
