Foxy, thanks for that.

I entirely agree that the whole exercise of going into the school was extremely stupid. I'd be upset too, if I were a parent, even though I like Henson's work. God knows what got into them.

With all their supposedly squeamishness regarding sex and other matters the Victorians apparently made no fuss about a similar situation.

Lewis Carroll, a mathematics professor and author of "Alice in Wonderland" and other works, took many pictures of young girls in the nude in the early days of photography. He was a bachelor possibly not through choice but because a professor in his institution was not allowed to marry. Can you imagine the current fuss if a middle aged or elderly pedagogue had the same pastime?

Since I'm not prepared to wade through the emotive rubbish that passes for reportage these days, can someone please clear up whether this 'prowling' and 'preying' at a school incident happened before or after the last round of hysteria?

My impression is that David Marr described it in a book he wrote about the original scandal. If that's the case, the chances of a school principal escorting Henson anywhere have been between Buckleys and none for quite some time. In turn, if that's the case, Henson is not the object of concern here at all and, more bizarre, Gibo was right to raise the issue of witches and those who hunt them.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brumby-to-probe-hensons-school-visit-20081004-4txt.html

"The inquiry will focus on whether any protocols regarding child protection were broken during a tour of St Kilda Park Primary last year." - "Four months ago, police in NSW seized his work from a Sydney gallery and threatened to charge him and the gallery over allegedly indecent images of children"

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/oct/06/aap-probe-into-henson-school-visit-starts/

"Mr Henson ignited a national debate earlier this year when his nude photographs of a young girl were removed from an exhibition at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery in Paddington, in Sydney's east.

The furore over his visit to the school erupted on the weekend when a new book by journalist David Marr revealed the artist had been asked into St Kilda Park Primary last year and spotted two children he thought would be good models for his work."

R0bert

It's worth remembering that the visit to the school was prior to the exhibition which caused the kafuffle.

I don't care whether Henson does or does not make money out of his work, I just feel icky about a man 'perusing' my child without my permission with a view to using them (even with my later permission) for possibly nude art.

After all... we send our children to school to learn ABC 123 not how to pose without clothes on for some controversial artist. It seems like a major breach of trust for the principle to accomodate Henson like this.

I happen to agree with Fractelle to a degree and whoever said that chaplains or priests or evangelists should not be allowed into secular schools to 'save' the lost so to speak. In my childrens local primary school, one of our own congregation members worked as a chaplain, but this was NOT an evangelistic fishing exercise, it was providing caring comfort to many children from disfunctional families.

Chaplains can certainly answer questions raised by children, but they cannot use such times opportunistically against the rules. If they do, then they are as guilty as any teacher who preaches party politics in a social studies class..but not more guilty :)

A few other sidelights to this bear examination.

1/ As per Robert.. a BOOK is now being promoted..and this publicity can do nothing but help it's sales.

2/ Ratings of Media outlets are also helped by this controversy.

3/ None of which change the 'creepy' aspect of a man prowling your childs primary school looking for potential models.

So.. clearly a freeding frenzy has begun as those who see benefit in the controversy itself begin to utilize it for commercial gain.

4/ It might be worthwhile for some of us doing an ad hoc survey about who things the actual acts in question ..
-visiting the school.
-Principle allowing/inviting him.

are anything other than 'creepy'.

This morning I asked a female service station attendant (age range 20-30) when buying a globe for my headlight.. and she said CREEEPY!
But the principle says

"I've done nothing wrong"

Which raises the issue of MIUAUG again.. some members of the community feel that such a thing is fine..and others don't. So...in the end.. who decides? Well..presumably the interpretation of the law and democracy.

But his underlines the fact that if given their free run, some members of the community will happily allow 'artists' to prowl our schoolgrounds looking for nude models among our children and think nothing of it.

This says to me that those who have a high moral standard and a sense of child protection need not apologise in the slightest for IMPOSING their views by law on the rest.