Comments on: Cornish church thinks blasphemy law still applies http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/08/04/cornish-church-thinks-blasphemy-law-still-applies/ Watching. Pointing. Laughing. Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:09:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: martyn http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/08/04/cornish-church-thinks-blasphemy-law-still-applies/comment-page-1/#comment-180352 martyn Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:17:42 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=2218#comment-180352 Beau Locks, I wish I'd thought of it! Beau Locks, I wish I’d thought of it!

]]> By: Blawg Review #266 « Pink Tape http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/08/04/cornish-church-thinks-blasphemy-law-still-applies/comment-page-1/#comment-180319 Blawg Review #266 « Pink Tape Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:39:49 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=2218#comment-180319 [...] Or because we Brits have crazily and inherently contradictory ideas about sex and nudity: see here and here (for US readers, the lady with the love heart bra is ’Babs’, she is considered [...] [...] Or because we Brits have crazily and inherently contradictory ideas about sex and nudity: see here and here (for US readers, the lady with the love heart bra is ’Babs’, she is considered [...]

]]> By: Stonyground http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/08/04/cornish-church-thinks-blasphemy-law-still-applies/comment-page-1/#comment-180258 Stonyground Sun, 09 Aug 2009 17:42:47 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=2218#comment-180258 "They're on a bit of a loser case with this one, aren't they?" Doubly so because they are giving the guy a great load of free publicity, however it turns out, this photographer will come out as a winner. “They’re on a bit of a loser case with this one, aren’t they?”

Doubly so because they are giving the guy a great load of free publicity, however it turns out, this photographer will come out as a winner.

]]> By: barriejohn http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/08/04/cornish-church-thinks-blasphemy-law-still-applies/comment-page-1/#comment-180226 barriejohn Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:36:41 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=2218#comment-180226 Yes, the human body is disgusting, isn't it? I wonder who designed it!! Yes, the human body is disgusting, isn’t it? I wonder who designed it!!

]]> By: Fatpie42 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/08/04/cornish-church-thinks-blasphemy-law-still-applies/comment-page-1/#comment-180222 Fatpie42 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:32:20 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=2218#comment-180222 Apparently the legal charge is for trespassing. The blasphemy has only been remarked upon. It makes sense, I guess. If anyone who walked into a Church was in danger of being charged with trespassing (or even if they could just be charged with trespassing if they took a photograph the Church owners didn't like), they'd be making practically impossible to gain any new church-goers. As such, they need a reason why the photographer would be clearly unwelcome. As I said before, they can't really point to 'taking photographs' and criticising them for simply being naked is going to be awkward (since they haven't exposed themselves to anyone within the building). As such, the only thing that they can point to is that the photo shoot was insulting to the institution which currently looks after the building and performs cermonies there. They're on a bit of a loser case with this one, aren't they? Apparently the legal charge is for trespassing. The blasphemy has only been remarked upon. It makes sense, I guess. If anyone who walked into a Church was in danger of being charged with trespassing (or even if they could just be charged with trespassing if they took a photograph the Church owners didn’t like), they’d be making practically impossible to gain any new church-goers.

As such, they need a reason why the photographer would be clearly unwelcome. As I said before, they can’t really point to ‘taking photographs’ and criticising them for simply being naked is going to be awkward (since they haven’t exposed themselves to anyone within the building). As such, the only thing that they can point to is that the photo shoot was insulting to the institution which currently looks after the building and performs cermonies there.

They’re on a bit of a loser case with this one, aren’t they?

]]>