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

In All Fairness

Jakkass wrote: »

How is that dishonest? I said the Catholic Church has outwardly come out and condemned the actions of those involved, and many figures in Ireland so far including the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin have been involved in trying to put things right. I think that's honourable.

I have yet to wonder what relevance either the Catholic Church, or child abuse has to do on a thread about a non-Catholic Church.

If you could mail that remorse to twenty years ago before they were forced into it it might mean something. I have yet to hear Diarmaid Martin say the Pope should be extradited or that senior members of the church should be indicted for perverting the course of justice,fraud and other criminal charges including his predecessor. The idea that the Guards are still treating these people as figures of respect rather than the common criminals that they are is repugnant to me. I would love to know what right Diarmuid Martin,as a part of this paedophile ring, thinks he has to "put things right" in any other way than assisting the authorities. And you never answered my point that to say you are sorry publicly while desperately trying to pervert and evade justice behind closed doors is dishonest and disingenuous. Of course you are absolutely correct in your assertion that this argument is completely off topic and irrelevant but I was responding to earlier posts.

I.J.

Deleted User wrote: »

You know nothing about me, if you want to make such assumptions, I'll happily arrange to meet you and you can say what you're saying behind your little keyboard to my face. You're nothing but an internet warrior.

And once again you avoid the point.

and considering the nasty attitude you had to bronte in previous posts you lead as the ultimate internet warrior but then talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You still think people take note of what the Catholic Church has to say when I've given you enough examples of how they don't. Whats it like living in the 1940s may I ask.

I.J.

I.J. wrote: »

And once again you avoid the point.

and considering the nasty attitude you had to bronte in previous posts you lead as the ultimate internet warrior but then talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You still think people take note of what the Catholic Church has to say when I've given you enough examples of how they don't. Whats it like living in the 1940s may I ask.

More rambling bitter assumptions.

I take that as a yes then. I'll send you a pm now and you can say what you're saying on this to my face.

I.J.

Deleted User wrote: »

More rambling bitter assumptions.

I take that as a yes then. I'll send you a pm now and you can say what you're saying on this to my face.

Ferociously immature. Go back to the playground 5 year old.

I.J.

I.J. wrote: »

Ferociously immature. Go back to the playground 5 year old.

You're nothing but a total coward. The fact of the matter is, you wouldn't say it to my face so why say it behind your little keyboard. You're a total disgrace of a human being. I've sent you a pm, I've told you where I live big man, so if you're going to use those tiny nuts of yours to build up the courage to insult me over the internet, I'd expect you to be able to say it to my face. But you won't and you can't. You've ignored my polite PM telling you my plans, when I'm free etc and you've cowered away with your tail between your legs resorting to calling me immature. Now go have a nice sleep knowing that you're a total coward and if you change your mind you little baby, you know where my PM is and you can write back and arrange to say it to my face.

AlmightyCushion

I.J. wrote: »

Ferociously immature. Go back to the playground 5 year old.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're nothing but a total coward. The fact of the matter is, you wouldn't say it to my face so why say it behind your little keyboard. You're a total disgrace of a human being. I've sent you a pm, I've told you where I live big man, so if you're going to use those tiny nuts of yours to build up the courage to insult me over the internet, I'd expect you to be able to say it to my face. But you won't and you can't. You've ignored my polite PM telling you my plans, when I'm free etc and you've cowered away with your tail between your legs resorting to calling me immature. Now go have a nice sleep knowing that you're a total coward and if you change your mind you little baby, you know where my PM is and you can write back and arrange to say it to my face.

Both of you banned. You can take your petty bickering elsewhere.

philologos

I.J. wrote: »

And once again you avoid the point.

And you aren't missing the main point of the thread?

Is it or is it not acceptable for a photographer to take this type of photography in a church without their permission?

Yes, or no. It's really that simple.

In All Fairness

Jakkass wrote: »

And you aren't missing the main point of the thread?

Is it or is it not acceptable for a photographer to take this type of photography in a church without their permission?

Yes, or no. It's really that simple.

Heh mate. I.J. and Entrepreneur were banned for some strange reason:). Anyway in answer to your question I would say that the fact that it was a church doesn't even need to be brought into the argument. It was unacceptable in the exact same way as it was unacceptable for that man to hang his caricatures of Brian Cowan in the National Gallery.
Where the church comes into it is a far more human thing and is about having respect for things that are important to other people even though they mightn't be important to you. Unfortunately you can't legislate for this sort of thing.
The other argument is far too complex for a thread and needs to be discussed in detail over several pints and the bottle of Bell's I'm buying Brummytom for his 16th birthday (shame to see it go to waste)

Bet we have a better night than I.J. and Entrepreneur.;)

In All Fairness

Oh yeah mate. Meant to say, would you have been as quick to drag the argument back on thread had you been winning the Catholic Church/Paedophile Ring debate.:p

"To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare (another of God's prophets):)

Call Me Jimmy

Would the Catholic Church not try to pursue criminal charges in order to get justice, rather than whoring for cash?

philologos

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Would the Catholic Church Church of England not try to pursue criminal charges in order to get justice, rather than whoring for cash?

FYP.

Perhaps it was a bit naiive of the church to expect that people would respect their church when so many clearly don't. Leaving a church open for prayers might have been a bad idea.

Arguably the Diocese of Truro are in part responsible due to their naiivity. The naiivity of trusting people to respect faith where too many people just don't. It's a nasty reality but one none the less.

Interceptor

If I left my front door open and some twonk came in and took nudie pics of a minging bint in my living room I'd be annoyed enough to want to make an example of him. I've had a look at the pics on his website and they are bad enough for me to agree with the Diocese of Truro. Down with this sort of thing...

'c

In All Fairness

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Would the Catholic Church not try to pursue criminal charges in order to get justice, rather than whoring for cash?

It's actually the Anglican Church I think, and you have to take into account that it is quite possible that no criminality took place in which case it is not a matter for the police. If this is the case, the church has no recourse to justice but to pursue a civil case seeking compensation. I also think it is a bit of a leap in this instance (although I make no defence for the church overall) to accuse the church of whoring for cash. I would imagine the Church are trying to discourage anyone else from doing it and will probably sue for an amount in damages that will constitute a heavy fine for the photographer plus any proceeds from the photographs. It is also highly probable given the high profile nature of the case that this settlement will be donated to charity.
Btw in total agreement about the Catholic Church caring more for money than justice.

wudangclan

Deleted User wrote: »

You're nothing but a total coward. The fact of the matter is, you wouldn't say it to my face so why say it behind your little keyboard. You're a total disgrace of a human being. I've sent you a pm, I've told you where I live big man, so if you're going to use those tiny nuts of yours to build up the courage to insult me over the internet, I'd expect you to be able to say it to my face. But you won't and you can't. You've ignored my polite PM telling you my plans, when I'm free etc and you've cowered away with your tail between your legs resorting to calling me immature. Now go have a nice sleep knowing that you're a total coward and if you change your mind you little baby, you know where my PM is and you can write back and arrange to say it to my face.

just out of curiosity...
what are you going to do if he does meet you?
get all christian on his ass? (and i mean that in the metaphorical sense)

Bottle_of_Smoke

Good grief no one died. All they're doing is making Craddock really famous.