Monday
Roy Bacon has spotted a shocking and indecent source of 'child pornography' that our political masters seem to have left us completely unprotected from
The criminal law has apparently caught up with thoughtcrimes associated with digital manipulation of imagery; but if the legislators want real headlines, and more celebrated scalps, perhaps they should look at more traditional means of picture-making.
Today I visited a central London venue in which were publicly displayed dozens – perhaps hundreds – of indecent images of children, ranging in age from a few days old to puberty. One child in particular seemed to have a voyeuristic cult formed around him, frequently appearing with his breast-flaunting unmarried mother in the company of older men and (in the most barbarous scenes) farmyard animals.
Most of the perpetrators of these images were, at least to judge from their surnames, foreign (Angelo, Velazquez, Rubens, etc.), and the vast majority are long dead and presumably burning in hell for their perversions. However, the guardian and curator of this squalid collection is alive and well and living under British jurisdiction. He is, of course, Charles Saumarez Smith, the Director of the National Gallery.
Who is going to inform the authorities?
Try painting this today and see how long you stay out of jail
"Putti in our hands". The title is pure genius and will have me chuckling every time I think of it.
Posted by Albion at August 14, 2006 01:51 AM
I recently watched the 1963 version of Lord of the Flies and noted that the nudity in the film would be unthinkable in today's climate. In fact, I was mildly surprised it hadn't been edited out; what a sad commentary on modern society.
Posted by TPS at August 14, 2006 07:59 AM
Guest writer,
Please return. That was an excellent piece. I would just like to add that the overwhelming majority of perps were white middle-class European males who were perpetuating a paternalist phallocracy.
Posted by Nick M at August 14, 2006 10:30 AM
