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

Run_to_da_hills · 01-08-2009 3:43pm #1

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 · 01-08-2009 3:45pm

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 · 01-08-2009 3:48pm

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

01-08-2009 3:48pm

Ah the Hunted become the hunters.

getz · 01-08-2009 3:49pm

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

Eire-Dearg · 01-08-2009 3:51pm

I want to see the pictures before discussing this further.

Handsome Bob · 01-08-2009 3:54pm

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 · 01-08-2009 3:56pm

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. · 01-08-2009 3:58pm

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 · 01-08-2009 4:08pm

I.J. wrote: »

The sexually retarded Church strikes again!

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

bronte · 01-08-2009 4:16pm

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

Silverfish · 01-08-2009 4:21pm

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 · 01-08-2009 4:25pm

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

Dragan · 01-08-2009 4:31pm

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 · 01-08-2009 5:58pm

were they fully nude or just a bit of crack?

PCPhoto · 01-08-2009 6:04pm

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 · 01-08-2009 6:08pm

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 · 01-08-2009 6:13pm

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 · 01-08-2009 6:14pm

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

brendanuk · 01-08-2009 6:18pm

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 · 01-08-2009 6:20pm

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. · 01-08-2009 11:38pm

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 · 01-08-2009 11:42pm

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 · 01-08-2009 11:45pm

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 · 01-08-2009 11:57pm

No pics in OP, FOR SHAME

aDeener · 02-08-2009 12:00am

benj wrote: »

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

the church of england, you really should read the link

Run_to_da_hills · 02-08-2009 12:02am

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 · 02-08-2009 12:04am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This church is not RC.

I don't give a ****

Rebelheart · 02-08-2009 12:06am

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 · 02-08-2009 12:07am

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

Splendour · 02-08-2009 12:16am

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...

I.J. · 02-08-2009 1:15am

Rebelheart wrote: »

You, I am sure, would not be happy if outsiders entered your home to wilfully disrespect you or your beliefs.

I don't invite strangers onto my property. I don't create the idea that my property is for everybody and welcome anybody to walk around.

dutchcat · 02-08-2009 1:24am

i'd say there are stiffey's in that graveyard that haven't been stiff for years:pac::pac:

philologos · 02-08-2009 3:09am

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?

Yes, it's actually more appalling that that took place and I would consider it a desecration of the church that these things happened here. I don't think that that really needs saying.

Mind you, this is incredibly off topic because we are discussing about the Church of England, a province of the Anglican Communion, not the Catholic Church.

Fajitas! · 02-08-2009 5:26am

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.

Era, they're always on about that forgiveness sh*te, but when push comes to shove, they're willing to sue for the few bob.

And hey - At least they weren't underage...

bronte · 02-08-2009 5:38am

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, it's actually more appalling that that took place and I would consider it a desecration of the church that these things happened here. I don't think that that really needs saying.

Mind you, this is incredibly off topic because we are discussing about the Church of England, a province of the Anglican Communion, not the Catholic Church.

Okay, what I meant to say was after years of churches preaching to me after being less than perfect themselves, I think that if this is the worst thing that happens on their grounds it'd be a good thing.

What happened to turn the other cheek Jakkass?

02-08-2009 6:42am

A lot of bitter bitter people in this thread ready to attack the Church (be it RC or not) - it just doesn't seem to matter.

Point is, it's official, there are so many useless specimens in the world today and I refer to the "photographer" and the people who are happy to mock religion at any chance they can get. You need to grow up and find something in life that motivates you instead of lowering yourselves every chance you can get. There are good and bad people in the world, the church is not exempt from this fact. Look at the bigger picture, understand that there are both good and bad people in the world otherwise you look like an idiot.

bronte · 02-08-2009 6:49am

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of bitter bitter people in this thread ready to attack the Church (be it RC or not) - it just doesn't seem to matter.

Point is, it's official, there are so many useless specimens in the world today and I refer to the "photographer" and the people who are happy to mock religion at any chance they can get. You need to grow up and find something in life that motivates you instead of lowering yourselves every chance you can get. There are good and bad people in the world, the church is not exempt from this fact. Look at the bigger picture, understand that there are both good and bad people in the world otherwise you look like an idiot.

They are bitter and angry because of what they've had to listen to for years.

Yes, there are good and bad people in the world, but the bad ones not belonging to a church don't preach and tell me how to live.

mukki · 02-08-2009 6:56am

legal action is the only "action" those priests will ever get, now they will have somthing to think about while saying mass

your one in pic number five (reading the bible) looks like she has a big pair of balls down there

02-08-2009 6:59am

bronte wrote: »

They are bitter and angry because of what they've had to listen to for years.

What a braindead statement, they don't make you listen. You choose to do what you want to do.

It's your choice. Are you that easy to walk on in real life ?

bronte · 02-08-2009 7:12am

Deleted User wrote: »

What a braindead statement, they don't make you listen. You choose to do what you want to do.

It's your choice. Are you that easy to walk on in real life ?

Really? That's interesting!
I didn't have much of a choice when the catholic adoption society that my folks adopted me from made them agree to bring me up catholic.
Where was my choice there?
Why ask 7 year olds to make communion?
12 year olds to take a pledge and make confirmation?.
They don't know what the fcuk they're doing.

02-08-2009 7:27am

bronte wrote: »

Really? That's interesting!
I didn't have much of a choice when the catholic adoption society that my folks adopted me from made them agree to bring me up catholic.
Where was my choice there?
Why ask 7 year olds to make communion?
12 year olds to take a pledge and make confirmation?.
They don't know what the fcuk they're doing.

Aw boo hoo. You have the choice to leave when you are older don't you ?

Do you know what I say to that, fair play to the adoption society for taking you in to begin with to give your parents the option to adopt you. I know adopted people, my own siblings are adopted and have their own views on the Catholic Church and religion etc so I'm not buying that crap.

As I said before, get over the bitterness, get over the past and find something in life that motivates you instead of mocking the good people who exist within the Catholic church and any other religion out there.

bronte · 02-08-2009 7:44am

Deleted User wrote: »

Aw boo hoo. You have the choice to leave when you are older don't you ?

Do you know what I say to that, fair play to the adoption society for taking you in to begin with to give your parents the option to adopt you. I know adopted people, my own siblings are adopted and have their own views on the Catholic Church and religion etc so I'm not buying that crap.

As I said before, get over the bitterness, get over the past and find something in life that motivates you instead of mocking the good people who exist within the Catholic church and any other religion out there.

I want the time spent there in my youth back. I have found plenty of things I'm motivated by, thanks.

It'd be lovely if that church stopped taking advantage of innocent children who don't know any better.

Really mature post btw.

TestTransmission · 02-08-2009 7:50am

mukki wrote: »

legal action is the only "action" those priests will ever get, now they will have somthing to think about while saying mass

your one in pic number five (reading the bible) looks like she has a big pair of balls down there

where are these pics?Can only see the ones on the daily mail site

Gummy Panda · 02-08-2009 7:54am

bronte wrote: »

I want the time spent there in my youth back. I have found plenty of things I'm motivated by, thanks.

It'd be lovely if that church stopped taking advantage of innocent children who don't know any better.

Really mature post btw.

It's a Protestant church.

They've different views on christanity then Catholics. Less sin and guilt I believe.

bronte · 02-08-2009 7:59am

Gummy Panda wrote: »

It's a Protestant church.

They've different views on christanity then Catholics. Less sin and guilt I believe.

Yea that was in reply to TheEntrepreneur.
Churches in general annoy me.

jackncoke wrote: »

where are these pics?Can only see the ones on the daily mail site

You need to google the photographer, they're on his website.

TestTransmission · 02-08-2009 8:10am

bronte wrote: »

You need to google the photographer, they're on his website.

Awesome,I for one am not offended by these pics

02-08-2009 8:19am

bronte wrote: »

I want the time spent there in my youth back. I have found plenty of things I'm motivated by, thanks.

It'd be lovely if that church stopped taking advantage of innocent children who don't know any better.

Really mature post btw.

Whine whine whine whine whine. Go talk to a counsellor then to reclaim your youth.

Great to see the dig at the church again, what part of "there are good and bad people" in the world do you not understand ?

You've explained yourself really well, bitter little boy. Grow up ffs.

bronte · 02-08-2009 8:23am

Deleted User wrote: »

Whine whine whine whine whine. Go talk to a counsellor then to reclaim your youth.

Great to see the dig at the church again, what part of "there are good and bad people" in the world do you not understand ?

You've explained yourself really well, bitter little boy. Grow up ffs.

Post reported for abuse.

02-08-2009 8:27am

Good man.

TestTransmission · 02-08-2009 8:28am

Lads,were talking about half naked ladies here...lets not argue

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

Comments