Here I have to confess to a certain snobbishness - before reading the article I always read the bio of the person writing it first. It tells me what to expect. When I see "Professor of Administrative Studies at Manchester University and now Research Associate in the Department of Philosophy at Sydney University" I expect a tightly reasoned piece. There is even a reasonable chance it contains some deep new insight for me to ponder.

But this time the bio let me down. It looked like ramble in an OLO comment. It was only after I got most of the way though it realised that is exactly what it was - an extension of a previous OLO thread. Not such a bad thing, but different to what I was expecting.

Still, it contained this: "John Stuart Mill: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Others in other threads argued they or Tankard Reist where just expressing an opinion - their personal likes and dislikes. If so what they have to say is only of mild interest. Its only when you want to impose your views on others that the discussion has real meaning.

So, I am wondering, do most here accept John Stuart Mill's statement? Or do you believe there are other good reasons for power to exercised over your fellow man?

He is going to jail and staying in jail if he does it in Manchester, or any other part of the UK, Bill Henson is not an artist, he's a child pornographer. That's why he goes to jail if he tries his sick kiddie fetish stuff there. He's a pervert, in my book, and it's illegal in London. If you can't sell it in London, it has to be Japanese child porn, the reasoning is quite simple, art can be sold in London, and Bill's kiddie stuff is child pornography and so it can't be sold.

University tutor asked to photograph semi-naked children convicted of pornography

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2511121/University-tutor-asked-to-photograph-semi-naked-children-convicted-of-pornography.html

Bill Henson is one of the reasons, we have child pornograpy laws such as we have. He does photos for rich pdophiles. The sooner Bill Henson is in prison the better.

Hi Rstuart

"harm to others" can be defined in many ways. This is ultimately why groups who feel they have something to lose or something to promote, will end up in some way involved in political struggle.

For example.. when Pastor Ake Green was convicted of the 'crime' of 'insulting homosexuals' in Sweden... we find the problem well illustrated.

The State regarded his remarks.. made in a sermon, in his own church, as a crime.Simply because a homosexual was displeased with his terminology.
The problem with this is that even if he had just 'read' the passage concerned (Romans 1) it uses the words 'unnatural' and peverse to describe such behavior.

Now.. the choice must be made as follows:

1/ Homosexual feelings are hurt.
2/ Pastor is criminalized.

Underneath all this, is probably a 'revenge' aspect.. the homosexual lobby most likely associates the criminalization such behavior as coming from TheChurch, thus, they now want to give the church a dose of it's own medicine.. by criminalizing it.

Make no mistake.. the criminalizing of a few verses of the Bible, is about as close as it gets to Christians being thrown to wild animals as has happened in the past.

So.. "Who's" harm... takes precedence in this kind of thing?

The emotional "harm" to a person stubbornly clinging to an un-natural behavior pattern.. or a natural Pastor simply preaching to his flock?

Dear oh dear. Another rubbish article from a wowserish retiree who appears to have discovered undergraduate philosophy in his dotage. Like his last piece on the subject, it adds little to the 'debate' except to keep the moral panic bubbling away.

I wouldn't have bothered to respond to Bowden's latest blather, except for the fact that he's decided to quote me - out of context of course. It's interesting to observe who's popped out from under their own rocks already - with the exception of rstuart of course, who makes a valiant attempt to divert the thread into something that might make for a reasonable discussion.

However, I don't think I'll take rstuart up on this thread - I have a feeling it's just going to be tedious extension of Bowden's last one.

Boaz, I have to say one thing for you, you never let the truth intrude upon your version of reality, do you?

We have had this discussion before:

>>For example.. when Pastor Ake Green was convicted of the 'crime' of 'insulting homosexuals' in Sweden... we find the problem well illustrated.<<

You completely ignore the reality:

"Sweden's Supreme Court has acquitted a Pentecostal pastor accused of inciting hatred against homosexuals."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4477502.stm

How can you possibly expect to engender any respect for your new persona Polycarp when you persist in repeating the ridiculous claims you made when you were Boaz?

Would you like to also reopen the discussion on that same thread where you defend the Bible's attitude towards the fairer sex?

"and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women" Rev 14:3-4

UNCRC I just read the Telegraph story. The judge convicted the tutor, but in a way which said he essentially wasn't guilty - sentenced to 150 hours of community work. In sentencing he said that there was no improper motive in taking the photographs, and that they had been taken at the invitation of the children's parents.

I think that it is extraordinary that a civilised country would have such draconian legislation and that anyone could support it.