graham ovenden sentencing and lord mcalpine

Ovenden was able to paint his 'mucky pictures' by blindfolding young girls and asking them to play a taste game...which included tasting his 'thumb' ?For this he gets a suspended sentence and sympathy for being old. So yes Iam64 you are right to be disgusted and I'm sad that this discussion has been trivialised

I agree when - I'd rather it stayed there so we can see the mind set it demonstrated and can therefore put such views and attitudes as she and her supporters exhibited in context.

I feel inclined not to report that 'mucky pics' comment by Jinglr, Bluebell. If she chooses to demonstrate such awful views about this issue of children being exploited, let it remain there . After all, the proponents of no censorship, even when it comes to children, would only complain that they should be allowed to read what was said. How sad.

The fact that J0 used the words 'mucky pictures' tells us everything we need to know.

Now why am I reminded of a naughty boy trying to shock the grown ups? I don't find child abuse of any kind amusing. Does that prove I have no sense of humour?

Has to be seen in context .. Quotations are valid but don't forget the words were spoken several years before being written down so sometimes the interpretation of the writer comes through Extra bits may have been added to the original words . From what we know of Jesus , he would not be wanting to exclude anyone.

Good point - I think it is meant to imply their natural innocence and perhaps trust? In the way ittle children trust their parents - and by extension, adults?
I think this trust is why any form of child abuse is simply so abhorrent.

Why did Matthew have to qualify his statement by including '...who believe in me...'? Does that imply that a little one who does not believe in Jesus or a Christian version of god is any less vulnerable?

All I can add is this:
Matthew 18:6

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

j08 You've surpassed yourself!

j08

Hey bluebell you've been a long time coming

one for buebell

Well Sel as someone once said in another context ' pass me the sick bucket'

I will now go to bed, having started and ended my day posting mucky pics on Gransnet.

I thought that merlot!!! (perhaps that's where he got the idea from )

she's old enough to know better (Balthus) But at least she's got her drawers on (of sorts)

jingle The middle one looks like Prince Harry

j08 in spite of censorship, you have provoked a very interesting debate. I can see both sides, why the original link upset those with first hand experience of child abuse and for myself the issue of why your link was deleted by Gransnet. I still think your link should have remained, I do abhor censorship but I guess GN's rules rule, so to speak I never have read the small print.

I think the Tuke ones are quite beautiful

What about Michelangelo's David? Leda and the Swan? Where does one draw the line at what is accepable in art now. I'm getting confused. I did once say to my daughter's art teacher that I'd seen some work by Balthus that I thought was good [I'd read that David Bowie was a fan] and he was horrified. At the time I just thought they were interesting and well painted.

I wonder if it's possible to find the naked human body beautiful without it being sexual.

Bit farcical, isn't it?

That deletion down there was to do with my getting that other one deleted.

could be Alexander and Hephaestion