There's been a furore in the UK recently over a photo taken by alleged artist Nan Goldin which was declared to be pornographic and bordering on the paedophilic after it went on display in the north of the country.
Today, the Crown Prosecution service have said the photo, part of a collection owned by "talented" dwarf and general arse Elton John, is not an indencent image and can go back on display.
The picture shows two little girls dancing, one of them is naked and fully exposes her genitals. As a result of it's content I refuse to post it my site.
For my money it constitutes an indecent image, it uses the theme of child nudity to deliberately shock and is a cheap shot from an allegedly talented artist.
Take a look at the pic (link goes to censored version) and make your own mind up, but one thing strikes me from the get-go - Nan Goldin is no artist, just a rip-off merchant selling crap to people with too much money. At best it's a nasty snap of a naked little girl, at worst it's atrocious photography that you wouldn't admit to if you'd taken it yourself.
And as for Elton John, what exactly was he thinking when he bought the piece? His level of common sense obviously matches his level of dress sense...
Occasionally, there are stories in the press about parents who've been arrested and questioned after taking baby pics of their kids in the bath, then taking them to a store to be developed. Apparently this kind of behaviour is wrong in this country.
Obviously if you're a flamboyant millionaire with more money then sense (clearly) you can own as much paedo-porn as you like without fear of retribution...
