Bromwyn, and All other so-called Prudes,

There is presently a poll going on with regards to
Should Art Galleries display nude photos of young Children
on Ninemsn
the count for yes--13,439 which has risen 597 in the last one and a half hours
the count for no--82,182 which has risen from 73,954 in the last one and a half hours

Must be a lot like youse out there(aye)

Just thought some one might like to know
Have a good life from Dave

DWG,
if you're unable to differentiate between prude & indecent then perhaps you should review your mentality. May I suggest looking at this debate like walking towards a cliff. One little step is insignificant however, keep walking & you'll know. Same goes for Moral.

Individual,
I don't understand the meaing of your post
I wasn't saying anyone was a prude but that word and others of the near same meaning comes up whenever this "Moral" issue raises its head
If you take note of the number for and the number against then you will see that the majority are against it
By the way I voted NO
Because it was worded SHOULD the art gallery BE allowed

Thanks again from Dave

Cornflower says:

"The US justice system can be relied upon to resolve any alleged questions of unfairness or lack of due process."

You must be joking, Cornflower! Have a look at this:

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/legal/20091001-australian-inventor-loses-445-million-microsoft-battle.html

A judge sets aside a jury verdict! Money (Micro$oft money, up to $445M of it, that is) has clearly talked with respect to theft of software ideas and breach of patent in this matter. How much more so if some rich benefactor was to get behind some 'grandstanding' political aspirant hoping to rally support from among the justifiably many who are revolted, be it sanctimoniously or with sincerity, by pedophilia, using the Polanski case as a vehicle? Hell, let's not look at ALL of the facts that may surround the Polanski matter in a TRIAL when there is an admission that has been obtained already. March the guilty bastard in, and send him down! No matter that breach of due process surrounded, maybe even coerced, those admissions in the first place.

Did I mention possible entrapment? Due to the (deliberate?) incompetence that permitted Polanski to flee the jurisdiction in the first place with such serious charges hanging over him, it now has to be considered why the victim does not want Polanski to be returned to the US over this matter. Could it have been that the victim, knowingly or unknowingly at the time, was part of a 'get Polanski' entrapment scheme that depended upon a malicious prosecution to get results? Sad to have to ask that question, but one that GrahamY's assertion that "It's not that relevant that the victim thinks he should be forgiven. While she is one party to the matter, the public also has an interest. ....", in the context of the existence of the plea bargaining system, now makes necessary.

There can now be no winners, least of all the cause of justice. Polanski's belated seizure in Switzerland can only be seen as an attempt to make US law operate extraterritorially before conviction.

DWG,
sincere appologies. I misread/misinterpreted your post.

Individual
No Probs, I thought you might have misread
By the way the last count before they took that poll down was about 89,500 - No
14,500 - Yes
Like i said must be a lot of us "prudes" out there (aye)
Have a good life from Dave