Look at this and tell me, do YOU find it sick? cos what i see is a pick of a baby and thats it. If i saw it, say, in a photoframe in someones house i wouldnt be shocked or think they must be a pedofile, id think aaw what a cute baby. How irresponsible of the sun to attach this meaning to it.

Look:http: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003272362,00.html

it wouldnt be sick in the parents or family's house, but in another persons it could be kinda classed as well, embarassing.

Sorry but I have to disagree. I don't find it offensive but it's hardly a dignified pose for the poor child. Can't think what the parents are thinking of allowing it to be printed.

Perhaps Kitty you aren't aware of just how much pedaphilia there is around these days. As a mother I am (sadly) constantly on the lookout for things which may be putting my children at risk.

Would you like to be photographed sat with your legs wide open :cry:

Yeah but only if that person was a pedophile or thought of it that way, it might be a strange taste in pics but not SICK. I think its quite cute. Wouldnt have it up in my house personally but its still quite cute.

Originally posted by "Mo"

Sorry but I have to disagree. I don't find it offensive but it's hardly a dignified pose for the poor child. Can't think what the parents are thinking of allowing it to be printed.

Perhaps Kitty you aren't aware of just how much pedaphilia there is around these days. As a mother I am (sadly) constantly on the lookout for things which may be putting my children at risk.

Would you like to be photographed sat with your legs wide open :cry:
Yes im aware, but i still dont find this picture sick its just a little baby, weve all seen naked babies before and usually people find them cute to look at. There is the odd few who find it more than cute, but why cater to their weird, sick ways and find it sick ourselves. Surely its the pedofiles who are sick, not the kids the lust after?

There's a very fine line these days to cross..
Unfortunately, my opinion is that this picture crosses those lines, since it is almost advertising a market for that kind of thing..

Surely it's the Sun at fault? If it hadn't been for them then this debate would not have started. It's up for auction as a piece of art and would not likely to have come to the attention of anyone other than those interested in it as a piece of art. Now that it has been exposed to a larger audience it has become something completely different.

Nothing wrong with the photo. Aren't there still seaside postcards featuring naked infants with their bits on display?

A lot wrong with anyone who finds it sexually exciting, they should be undergoing psychiatric treatment (When I'm not in my usual wet wishy washy liberal mood I might suggest psychiatric treatment involving electrodes attached to their genitalia but I wouldn't really mean it).

Something wrong with the Sun for reprinting it - I expect they want a re-run of those near public lynchings of rumoured paedophiles (which included a paediatrician 'cos the people were to thick to know the difference). That kind of thing sells newspapers.

Maybe something wrong with us getting indignant about it - to some extent classifying naked babies as porn makes some social inadequates think it is porn. It's a bit like when we banned legitimate ownership of licensed hand-guns for target practise - the result of the ban was that now there's a much more active black market and the same guy that can get you a target pistol will also offer you a kalashnikov and if you ask nicely he can probably lay his hands on a rocket launcher.

And there's lots more to worry about - what about erotic underwear for pre-pubescent girls? What message is that broadcasting? It's down to parenting, I'd not want my child photographed naked (to preserve his dignity and not infringe his rights) or clothed in an erotic manner, or fully dressed but in a suggestive pose.

The photographer (and presumably the child) is Dutch and public nudity for all ages is more acceptable there than here. We Brits have a bit of a problem with some confusion about nudity and sexuality, we can't cope with the concept of the Scandinavian mixed sauna either - Well I've been there and done it and there is nothing remotely sexual about nudity in that context. Its a body, we've all got one, get used to the idea.

Exactly.. the fact that in todays society we cant see a picture of a baby and link it with sex is disgusting really, and if the sun were so bothered about it.. why publicise it? And of all papers to moan about nudity too ... this coming from one that shows pics up celebs skirts and nude women on a regular basis

Wasn't there some guy a couple of years ago who took his photos of his young child to be developed at Boots and because there was a photo of his child naked in the bath, the person working there phoned the police...? (I'm sure I read about that when the papers went throught that phase of accusing everyone of being a paedophile.)

The thing with art is that it's always being misinterpreted. If there was a naked woman sat with her legs spread, some would say it was art whilst others would say it was pornography... and some people would treat it as art and others would be aroused by it (I guess). It's just the same here... but it's more sensitive because it's a child (and therefore would be illegal if it was pornography).

In my opinion, it's not sick by any means - but in the wrong hands it might be viewed in an unacceptable manner.

the sun is mass
of incandescent gas
a giagntic nuclear furnace
where hydrogen gets burned
into helium
at a temperature of
millions of degrees

mmm, but it can provide light entertainment when one requires it

Least the Sun backed the troops in Iraqi more then i can say for the Mirror which i have read for over 1o years

Originally posted by "Tony Ruscoe"

Wasn't there some guy a couple of years ago who took his photos of his young child to be developed at Boots and because there was a photo of his child naked in the bath, the person working there phoned the police...? (I'm sure I read about that when the papers went throught that phase of accusing everyone of being a paedophile.)
Almost right, it was newsreader Julia Somerville - and looking for that story I found a couple of interesting articles on the subject:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005520.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,450901,00.html

Perhaps Kitty you aren't aware of just how much pedaphilia there is around these days. As a mother I am (sadly) constantly on the lookout for things which may be putting my children at risk.

Would you like to be photographed sat with your legs wide open :cry:
There is no more paedophilia around today than there ever was that is unless you believe that a factory now pumps them out on a production line, in which case you should stop reading comics like Duh Sun.:loopy:

I hate how much of a grip of us the sun has - dictating how the masses think

look at the hysteria created in this thread alone

I despair of the fact that parents in general now seem to think if you don't have a child in tow, you're some sort of child molester - which then gives them carte blanche to treat you like you're a monster or sub human

:rant: :mad:

The fact that this is from the continent speaks volumes. We are so puritanical and histrionic about bodies. We are repressed and obsessed in this country. It makes me feel sad and sort of suffocated.

But the real point that enrages me about paedophilia debates is that the vast majority of abuse happens in the home, by family or familiars. If that photo *encouraged* filthy thoughts, then so do naked babies' very existence in front of dads, uncles, stepmothers, grandads, cousins, etc.

I don't think the photo is dignified, but I don't think it's disgusting. I think the festering suspicion being fuelled in people that there are monsters round every corner is far more dangerous, because our society is becoming stifled by paranoia.

Don't buy the Sun - Simple.

amen to that! wrap your chips in it, dont read it.

http://www.anfieldroad.com/images/stories/hillsborough/sungutter.jpg


A surprising number of people seem unaware of the boycott of The Sun by supporters of Liverpool Football Club. Some don't seem to know it is boycotted, others don't know why. Some people rather disturbingly know why the boycott exists but still choose to buy it.

If you choose to continue to buy The Sun after reading this article, and the articles it links to, then you ought to stop calling yourself a Liverpool supporter. Collect any shirts or scarves you have, and hand them in to a charity shop. In fact you can't really call yourself a football supporter. The lies printed in The Sun that you will read about below were aimed at Liverpool supporters, people from Liverpool, people from the North of England, football supporters of any club. If you fall into any of those categories you certainly shouldn't be buying, reading, or visiting the website of that newspaper. If you are a decent human being you will be steering clear of it from now on, even if you've not done so before.

If you buy the paper regularly already, print off all of this information, and save your money tomorrow. Read these articles instead. If you still want to buy that paper the following day I would be surprised.

The boycott of The Sun goes back to April 1989. At the time of writing that is almost 17 years ago. On April 15th 1989 a disaster took place which resulted in the deaths of ninety-six Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough, the home ground of Sheffield Wednesday, during an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. Ninety-six people had their lives crushed out of them. Many more are said to have ended their own lives since as a consequence of that disaster. A lot of injustices came out of that disaster, far too many to list here. For more information visit the Hillsborough Justice Campaign website at http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough and please try to support them.

This article concentrates on one piece of injustice that could so easily have been avoided. That could so easily have been made a little better, if not fixed, in the intervening years. Lies were printed as fact in a British newspaper, and that newspaper has still not made an unconditional apology for what it printed. Its editor of the time has never made an unconditional apology in all of that time.


The headlines and sub-headlines on the front page of The Sun newspaper on the Wednesday following the disaster were as follows:

“The Truth.
Some fans picked pockets of victims
Some fans urinated on the brave cops
Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life.”

So just four days after their loved ones had died, four days after they had narrowly escaped death themselves, Liverpool supporters were confronted with those headlines. People actually believed those headlines. Those who were there did not believe the headlines of course, nor did those who knew people who had been there. Unfortunately though a lot of people did believe those headlines; people who were not Liverpool supporters, perhaps supporters of another team or people who did not follow football at all. The headlines sewed seeds in so many people’s minds that the 96 supporters died at the hands of their own kind. All lies, all proven to be lies, yet never put right by that publication.

For more on the media coverage, visit http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/history/media.shtm,
http://football.guardian.co.uk and Wikipedia .

The Wikipedia article says: “The story accompanying these headlines claimed that ‘drunken Liverpool fans viciously attacked rescue workers as they tried to revive victims’ and ‘police officers, firemen and ambulance crew were punched, kicked and urinated upon’. A quote, attributed to an unnamed policeman, claimed that a dead girl had been abused and that Liverpool fans ‘were openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead’.”

Read that last bit again, it really was printed in a national newspaper.

Liverpool legend and the manager of the club at the time Kenny Dalglish was greatly affected by the tragedy. He attended numerous funerals and visited people in hospital, some of whom were in comas; he spent time with those that had lost their loved ones. In his autobiography he talks about the Disaster and recalls the media coverage:

“The press coverage was difficult to comprehend, particularly the publication of pictures which added to people's distress. There was one photograph of two girls right up against the Leppings Lane fence, their faces pressed into the wire. Nobody knows how they escaped. They used to come to Melwood every day, looking for autographs, and that photograph upset everyone there because we knew them. After seeing that I couldn't look at the papers again.

When the Sun came out with the story about Liverpool fans being drunk and unruly, underneath a headline 'The Truth,' the reaction on Merseyside was one of complete outrage. Newsagents stopped stocking the Sun. People wouldn't mention its name. They were burning copies of it. Anyone representing the Sun was abused. Sun reporters and photographers would lie, telling people they worked for the Liverpool Post and Echo. There was a lot of harassment of them because of what had been written. The Star had gone a bit strong as well but they apologised the next day. They knew the story had no foundation. Kelvin MacKenzie, the Sun's editor, even called me up.

“How can we correct the situation?” he said.

“You know that big headline – ‘The Truth’?” I replied. “All you have to do is put ‘We lied’ in the same size. Then you might be all right.”

Mackenzie said: “I cannot do that.”

“Well,” I replied, “I cannot help you then.”

That was it. I put the phone down. Merseysiders were outraged by the Sun. A great many still are.

There is no excuse for buying or reading The Sun. None whatsoever. If you read that newspaper, or worse still you buy that newspaper, after reading this article and those other articles that are linked to, then you are not fit to call yourself a Red. If you support another team, you should still be able to see why that newspaper should be boycotted. No matter what competitions they are running. Regardless of any “exclusives” they claim to have, even if it is the only paper left in the shop. Saying you bought it to get some tokens to help your daughter’s school to buy a new computer is not going to get you off the hook. It’s really simple:

Don’t buy the Sun.

http://www.anfieldroad.com/

There is no more paedophilia around today than there ever was that is unless you believe that a factory now pumps them out on a production line, in which case you should stop reading comics like Duh Sun.:loopy:

Have you got something to back that statement up? I'm not getting at you, just wondered how you came to that conclusion. To my mind there seems to be more of everything than there was 40/50 years ago. Rape, violence, theft etc.

Have you got something to back that statement up? I'm not getting at you, just wondered how you came to that conclusion. To my mind there seems to be more of everything than there was 40/50 years ago. Rape, violence, theft etc.

Or is it possible that there is just as much but they get more press coverage now?

Have you got something to back that statement up? I'm not getting at you, just wondered how you came to that conclusion. To my mind there seems to be more of everything than there was 40/50 years ago. Rape, violence, theft etc.
To me its just plain logic, why would there be a sudden surge in paedo's in the 90's? It would be a massive biological explosion. It is simply hyped up as it sells papers.

The post war years were generally more affuluent and happier times in terms of wealth distribution and access to society, not the US style gaping difference between 'estates' and suburbs that exists today. With more employment and more real jobs as opposed to shelf stacking and burger flipping I expect there was less crime and theft, dont know about rape.

As for the Sun, its history lessons tell us that during the 1930's it was trendy to be lazy and unemployed but then it was trendy to stop that for the war. In the 70's onwards, vast swathes of people decided to be lazy spongers but then got bored with it in the 90's by which time swarms of aggressive dogs and paedo's were on the loose anyway, emerging from a factory in Liverpool no doubt.

However I expect the real nadir in crime came in the 19th century with mass poverty and no safety net, just gin alley type lifes for many.

Or is it possible that there is just as much but they get more press coverage now?

Its just a question of population. If for example 10% (not a correct number just an example) of the population were paedophiles this would not grow it would be arouind the same number ad infinitum. However as the population has expanded so the amount of paedophiles has increased.

ie pop 1960 = 25,000,000 (again not correct merely an example.

10% = 2,500,000

Pop 2006 = 60,000,000

10% = 6,000,000

With the other 90% of the population growing at the same rate the likelihood of being a victim is about the same. With the rise of mass media hysteria the overbearing of some parents leads people to believe they are in more danger than they are.

...by which time swarms of aggressive dogs and paedo's were on the loose anyway, emerging from a factory in Liverpool no doubt.

My suspicions were correct.

Have you got something to back that statement up? I'm not getting at you, just wondered how you came to that conclusion. To my mind there seems to be more of everything than there was 40/50 years ago. Rape, violence, theft etc.
That was exactly why I started this thread (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=127607), to see how much information was out there. There's a good article linked to, which includes amongst other thing stats saying that children are much less likely to die (either from violence or accident) than 30 years ago - but it doesn't really give numbers on other crimes. On the subject of child abuse, there are plenty of studies out there saying as purdyamos did that the majority of abusers are known by the child - this would suggest to me that it's unlikely to have changed in frequency too much, just in knowledge (although I admit this is a theory, not proof).

My suspicions were correct.
Fact: No they weren't

To me its just plain logic, why would there be a sudden surge in paedo's in the 90's? It would be a massive biological explosion. It is simply hyped up as it sells papers.

The post war years were generally more affuluent and happier times in terms of wealth distribution and access to society, not the US style gaping difference between 'estates' and suburbs that exists today. With more employment and more real jobs as opposed to shelf stacking and burger flipping I expect there was less crime and theft, dont know about rape.

As for the Sun, its history lessons tell us that during the 1930's it was trendy to be lazy and unemployed but then it was trendy to stop that for the war. In the 70's onwards, vast swathes of people decided to be lazy spongers but then got bored with it in the 90's by which time swarms of aggressive dogs and paedo's were on the loose anyway, emerging from a factory in Liverpool no doubt.

However I expect the real nadir in crime came in the 19th century with mass poverty and no safety net, just gin alley type lifes for many.

There's a "wonky" take on history if ever I've seen it. :hihi:

There's a "wonky" take on history if ever I've seen it. :hihi:

As I said above.

[url]


“The Truth.
Some fans picked pockets of victims
Some fans urinated on the brave cops
Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life.”






I know one of those cops who was urinated on, he's been a friend of mine for over thirty years and is still a serving police officer. I don't know about the rest of the article but I am sure that bit is true!

was he urinated on because the liverpool supporter was having the life squashed out of him?

but as somone said - dont read the sun - it's a comic - written for and by simpltons.

They knew the story had no foundation. Kelvin MacKenzie, the Sun's editor, even called me up.
url]


Apologies if I have missed this, but who are you then?

David Conn has written two excellent articles on the Hillsboro Disaster, for anyone unfamiliar, or perhaps misguided, by what they have read elsewhere in newspapers.

Least the Sun backed the troops in Iraqi more then i can say for the Mirror which i have read for over 1o years

erm

woo hoo

war

luv it in ur shining sun!

war sells loadsa suns

The Sun isn't just a comic, it's the most vicious and shamefully dishonest of all the UK papers. It's just a tool for Rupert Murdoch to spread his agenda regardless of the consequences. As a Liverpool fan I refuse to read it, in fact I even refused to view the link to their article in the original post. It's just a crying shame that it's only scousers and Liverpool fans who boycott it.

The Sun isn't just a comic, it's the most vicious and shamefully dishonest of all the UK papers. It's just a tool for Rupert Murdoch to spread his agenda regardless of the consequences. As a Liverpool fan I refuse to read it, in fact I even refused to view the link to their article in the original post. It's just a crying shame that it's only scousers and Liverpool fans who boycott it.

Except I would imagine none of the people responsible for the "Truth About Hillsborough" reports back in 1989 are still working for the paper. All papers spread their own agenda - there's no such thing as unbiased reporting. And as for Rupert Murdoch, you can't really avoid his influence if you watch TV, read papers or use the net.....

The nirvana album nevermind had a nude baby boy swimming with his penis in full view, nobody cared about that at the time, and the record sold many millions of copies.
I bet some of the people in this thread who are complaining about the SUN have the very cd in their collection if they would care to look.
If you own that picture it doesn't mean you are a paedophile.

Are you sure about that?

Nevermind cover (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~madeira/Mackie%20The%20Star/Nirvana%20-%20Nevermind.JPG)

Except I would imagine none of the people responsible for the "Truth About Hillsborough" reports back in 1989 are still working for the paper.


No doubt the people still banging on about this boycott would argue that the Sun still hasn't printed an apology. Given that everything they said was true, it's hard to see why they should; but many people still refuse to accept that out of thirty thousand people who went to Hillsborough from Merseyside, some small number of them were guilty of these things. No doubt it's the same group who still refuse to pinpoint the direct cause of the whole sorry incident as thirty thousand people turning up when only 23,000 or something had tickets. If nobody without a ticket had tried to force entry to the ground, nobody would have died.

amen to that! wrap your chips in it, dont read it.


Wrap your chips in it ? Personally I wipe my bits with it !

To return to the question of the image of the naked child RobH (post no.8 ) and purdyamos (post no.17) have put it so well there's scarcely anything for me to say, except perhaps to agree with those who condemn the Sun as the appalling excuse for a newspaper that it is.

but as somone said - dont read the sun - it's a comic - written for and by simpltons.

Written by very clever men for very stupid men.

You don't sell 4,000,000 copies a day unless you know exactly what you are doing, and exactly who your market is.

First to the "art". It's a photo and not much else. It's only erotic if you are thinking that way. I have to agree that some sick people would but that's not what most would think.

As for the 96% of sun reader that says more about the type of pervert that reads that rag than it does about the photo.

Why someone would pay that sort of cash for a simple photo that would cost £20 to make in a fair quality frame says lots about the arty idiots.

To the sun as a 'newspaper'. I stopped reading it when I used to deliver it as a paperboy of 11 years old. While at that age I did enjoy seeing Vanya's breasts I soon worked out that it was a paper for thickos.

If I can manage that conclusion at only 11 years old it tells me that adults reading it must be a little stupid.

No doubt the people still banging on about this boycott would argue that the Sun still hasn't printed an apology. Given that everything they said was true, it's hard to see why they should; but many people still refuse to accept that out of thirty thousand people who went to Hillsborough from Merseyside, some small number of them were guilty of these things. No doubt it's the same group who still refuse to pinpoint the direct cause of the whole sorry incident as thirty thousand people turning up when only 23,000 or something had tickets. If nobody without a ticket had tried to force entry to the ground, nobody would have died.

Might I suggest you read a little more into the events of the day, and then reappraise your opinion on this?

Here is a good start.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beautiful-Game-Searching-Soul-Football/dp/0224064363/sr=1-1/qid=1168532024/ref=sr_1_1/026-9594876-4700446?ie=UTF8&s=books

Mike

Might I suggest you read a little more into the events of the day, and then reappraise your opinion on this?

Here is a good start.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beautiful-Game-Searching-Soul-Football/dp/0224064363/sr=1-1/qid=1168532024/ref=sr_1_1/026-9594876-4700446?ie=UTF8&s=books

Mike

Or even better:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hillsborough-Truth-Phil-Scraton/dp/1840181567/sr=8-1/qid=1168538460/ref=pd_ka_1/203-5846258-7559129?ie=UTF8&s=books

What Heyesey has said is just flat-out wrong. If he really wants to find out the facts instead of tabloid smears, I'll even lend him my copy of the above book.

As for Basil's claim that no one involved the infamous Hillsborough article is still at The Sun, Kelvin Mackenzie himself now writes a column for them. So much for "sorry" eh? :rolleyes:

I wonder how many paedo's purchased the sun to see that picture ?

i have absolutely no problem with nudity but i personally think this poor child is being exploited for the sake of "art".
i really dont like this photo and would never allow a photo of such nature taken of my daughter (by which i mean a picture that so obviously is to focus on her nether regions.)
why would any one want a picture of a baby/child with EVERYTHING on display?