I'm pulling myself back into the Henson drama, after reading this article.
Look, people, I could almost understand the righteous indignation that leads people to get libellous*, or cast the debate in new and interesting ways, IF Bill Henson was actually a paedophile, or some kind of proven danger to children.
But, love or hate his art, he isn't trying to do anything illegal. He isn't trying to take photographs of minors without parental consent. I've yet to see one report of a minor who he's taken photos of say they feel "exploited", or hear a negative reaction of a parent or subject who has dealt with Henson.
On the contrary, we've heard from quite a few parents and minors (or former subjects who were minors at the time) saying they're upset by the fact there is a furor in their name.
So where, ladies and gentleman, is the threat? Has there been any suggestion that Henson has so much as laid a finger on any of his subjects? Have there been any complaints from either parents or former subjects saying they felt exploited, felt co-erced?
No? So there's no actual threat?
Now, I've heard the argument that schools are for education, and that no-one should be permitted to scout for talent on school grounds, regardless or what it involves, and if that's your view, I can understand it.
But, if like some, you are objecting on the grounds that this is Bill Henson, can you explain to me why, if it's clear that he always obtains parental consent?
What are you actually afraid of? What are you actually protecting your children from?
* It wasn't until it was pointed out several times to Iain that he was actually being libellous that he amended his original post to add the words "could be seen as" to the sentence "who has aided and abetted him in what could be seen as stalking and grooming". Of course, he still wouldn't admit that what he'd said was wrong, or unfair, but that's Iain for you.
Couldn't get out of a one room building
15 hours ago