Church is to sue photographer over lewd otographs taken on Church property.

Run_to_da_hills

About time the churches started to fight back and sue for a change.

The pictures of semi-naked models cavorting amongst gravestones and inside the church were taken at St Michael Penkivel Church in Cornwall.

Now photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the Diocese of Truro for trespass and not having permission to take photographs, accusing him of blasphemy.

Mr Craddock, his girlfriend and a couple of models used the 13th century church without the Reverend Andrew Yates knowing and then published the pictures on his website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/8179635.stm

TPD

It's 'lewd', dude.

I dont seem as suave now you've edited the title.

Actually, I've noticed another. Photographs has a 'p'.

PCPhoto

ok... I wanna see the pics and judge for myself :P

Ah the Hunted become the hunters.

getz

they found her pants in the vestry, and his vest in the pantry

Eire-Dearg

I want to see the pictures before discussing this further.

Handsome Bob

Too bad for the photographers that the young male models were booked up on that day because they may have been able to bribe the church officials. :pac:

Ciaran500

Eire-Dearg wrote: »

I want to see the pictures before discussing this further.

They're up on his site, which I'm not going to link to.

I.J.

The sexually retarded Church strikes again!

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

About time the churches started to fight back and sue for a change.

The pictures of semi-naked models cavorting amongst gravestones and inside the church were taken at St Michael Penkivel Church in Cornwall.

Now photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the Diocese of Truro for trespass and not having permission to take photographs, accusing him of blasphemy.

Mr Craddock, his girlfriend and a couple of models used the 13th century church without the Reverend Andrew Yates knowing and then published the pictures on his website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/8179635.stm

Min

I.J. wrote: »

The sexually retarded Church strikes again!

Nah it is a case of the sexually retarded photographer using church grounds.

bronte

:rolleyes: If that's the worst thing that happens on the church grounds we'll be lucky.

Silverfish

If there's nothing wrong with doing it, he could have asked permission to.
The fact that he knew he'd probably be refused so did it without permission shows he knew all along there'd be some trouble, but did it anyway.

No sympathy for him.


And I'm not religious in any way shape or form, but I think I would be offended by some of those pictures if I was, they show a complete lack of respect. Just because you don't agree with someone's beliefs doesn't mean you can go out of your way to upset them.

benj

who cares??????????????????????

Dragan

Silverfish wrote: »

If there's nothing wrong with doing it, he could have asked permission to.
The fact that he knew he'd probably be refused so did it without permission shows he knew all along there'd be some trouble, but did it anyway.

No sympathy for him.


And I'm not religious in any way shape or form, but I think I would be offended by some of those pictures if I was, they show a complete lack of respect. Just because you don't agree with someone's beliefs doesn't mean you can go out of your way to upset them.

If he asked permission it wouldn't have come to us all talking about him, and the billion + links to his site since the news broke.

A good way to get some free advertisement is to court controversy....especially in his case. The people he will piss off would never hire him anyway...the people who will won't care.

benj

were they fully nude or just a bit of crack?

PCPhoto

not very impressed by the pics !!

church isnt clearly identifiable from the pics - I like the one of the two girls on the alter....which could have been better if it was a guy and a girl. (especially with the message below the couple)

uberwolf

I.J. wrote: »

The sexually retarded Church strikes again!

hardly. The pictures are soft porn, which abuse church property and symbols to titillate. I have no religious ties, but find the invasion of a church for the posing of sexually provocative photographs on an altar, and with the use of the cross inappropriate. If it was a decommissioned church fine, do you what you want, but the pictures sought to provoke, and I'm glad they have.

spurious

Doesn't the Church (and presumably its large property portfolio) belong to us all - 'we' are the Church is what they like to say when it suits them.

galwayrush

Dare him to try it at a Mosque.:rolleyes:

brendanuk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203464/Good-Lord-Church-plans-legal-action-S-M-fetishists-13th-century-site-erotic-photo-shoot.html

perfect Daily Mail story, chance to be outraged and show photos at same time.
pretty poor "art"

philologos

spurious wrote: »

Doesn't the Church (and presumably its large property portfolio) belong to us all - 'we' are the Church is what they like to say when it suits them.

It belongs to those who partake in a religious community. Arguably in the case of the Church of England it belongs to the tax payer. However, it's appalling and outright disrespectful to believers to have this kind of carry on inside of a church. Christians respect the community around them for the most part, and I think that others should show us the same respect as an act of courtesy.

It's public, but that does not mean that taking pictures like these in a church is acceptable.

I.J.

Min wrote: »

Nah it is a case of the sexually retarded photographer using church grounds.

Whats wrong with taking a few photographs on Church grounds?. People do it all the time. Are all those people being sued? If the public is invited to enter the property and take photographs, then there's no need for complaining. The only thing here is that the photos are supposed to be risque but anybody who has a problem with risque photos is sexually frustrated.

Run_to_da_hills

I.J. wrote: »

Whats wrong with taking a few photographs on Church grounds?. People do it all the time. Are all those people being sued? If the public is invited to enter the property and take photographs, then there's no need for complaining. The only thing here is that the photos are supposed to be risque but anybody who has a problem with risque photos is sexually frustrated.

In this case its commercial gain, the culprit was setting up a website depicting broads.

bronte

Pity a photographer didn't decide to take pics of the abuse of the last few years. Would there be such a problem then?

Tar.Aldarion

No pics in OP, FOR SHAME

aDeener

benj wrote: »

who cares??????????????????????

the church of england, you really should read the link

Run_to_da_hills

bronte wrote: »

Pity a photographer didn't decide to take pics of the abuse of the last few years. Would there be such a problem then?

This church is not RC.

bronte

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This church is not RC.

I don't give a ****

Rebelheart

I.J. wrote: »

Whats wrong with taking a few photographs on Church grounds?. People do it all the time. Are all those people being sued? If the public is invited to enter the property and take photographs, then there's no need for complaining. The only thing here is that the photos are supposed to be risque but anybody who has a problem with risque photos is sexually frustrated.

Respect, one little word. As for your assessment of people who don't agree with you, that's neither here nor there. They are entitled to respect for their view on this issue, particularly as the offense was carried out on their property. This stunt was merely a cheap attempt at publicity through using believers' property to disrespect them. You, I am sure, would not be happy if outsiders entered your home to wilfully disrespect you or your beliefs.

Rebelheart

Oh, and what terrible photos. An amateur could have done much better.

Splendour

benj wrote: »

who cares??????????????????????

Apparantly alot of people. How would you feel if the photos were taken by the graveside of your mother or brother or child. Do you think you'd give a damn then?
As for taking photos inside the church-it's just pure ignorance really tbh. Respect is a word which some people really don't know the meaning of anymore...