Art gallery warned by police to remove swan photo after 'bestiality' fears

[MM]

The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.

Sadly, the gallery kowtowed, even though no-one was arrested, and
removed the artwork. A spokesperson said "[The police] stood there and
didn’t leave until we took the piece down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9232512/Mythical-swan-
photo-taken-down-after-bestiality-fears.html

Why don't art galleries have the balls to say 'no'?

Aren't there other art galleries prepared to display the photo and let
the police do their worst?

MM

[Nigel Oldfield]

“They said the photograph suggested we condoned bestiality, which was an
arrestable offence,” she said.

Bestiality Is Best Boys !!!

Hahahahahahahahah - knobs.

WM

[Mel Rowing]

Why don't you learn to post a long URL link?

http://tinyurl.com/bmowvpl

According to the Telegraph report ther might be a prima facie case:

"According to Greek mythology, the god Zeus took the form of a swan to
seduce or rape Leda. She was later said to bear his children,
Polydeuces and Helen of Troy.

Some versions of the story suggest they were formed in eggs.

Miss Mehta said the myth of Leda’s rape by Zeus was an acceptable form
of erotica in Victorian times. However, this argument failed to
impress the police."

It would fail to impress me too. I've never heard the legend either!

Strikes me that the gallery has been seeking a little free publicity
and the Telegraph has obliged.

[Andy Burns]

Mel Rowing wrote:

> On Apr 29, 11:46 am, MM<kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9232512/Mythical-swan-
>> photo-taken-down-after-bestiality-fears.html
>

> Why don't you learn to post a long URL link?
> http://tinyurl.com/bmowvpl

Why rely on an 3rd party shortener, just chop off all the SEO junk, or
replace it with your own phrase.

http://telegraph.co.uk/culture/9232512/pervy-swan.html

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:46:40 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Why don't art galleries have the balls to say 'no'?

Why should they say no when it's the best form of free advertising
they will ever need.

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Stephen Wolstenholme" <st...@npsl1.com> wrote in message
news:e0aqp7tldc62b2nda...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:46:40 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Why don't art galleries have the balls to say 'no'?
>
> Why should they say no when it's the best form of free advertising
> they will ever need.

Funny how this "controversial" piece just happened to be visible from
passing buses...

Maybe they reserve the window display for pieces of art that actually
require some talent to produce.

[Mel Rowing]

Handy tip thanks!

[Andy Burns]

Mel Rowing wrote:

> Andy Burns<usenet.aug2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> http://telegraph.co.uk/culture/9232512/pervy-swan.html
>
> Handy tip thanks!

Following the discussion on .moderated, do we have authorisation to
follow such "pared-down" links?

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

We don't need authorisation.

[totallyconfused]

Reminds me of the controversy about that photo owned by Elton John;
someone (or perhaps a few people) found it 'an issue' with it; Both
the MET and (I believe) Tyneside Police investigated on different
occasions; both found nothing 'indecent' about the 'image'. Yet I
know people who have been accused of 'making indecent images' with
this image cited in 'evidence'.

TC

[MM]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:03:15 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
<mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Why don't you learn to post a long URL link?

I did post a long URL link. Long enough to confuse you, at least.

MM

[MM]

Oh, I might have known that you would side with the politically
correct!

MM

[Mel Rowing]

On Apr 29, 2:14 pm, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:03:15 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
>

> <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Why don't you learn to post a long URL link?
>
> I did post a long URL link. Long enough to confuse you, at least.

Oh you didn't confuse me! I've known you too long for that!

It did confuse my computer however, and so I was forced to intervene.

[pensive hamster]

On Apr 29, 12:03 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:

[...]

>
> http://tinyurl.com/bmowvpl
>
> According to the Telegraph report ther might be a prima facie case:
>
> "According to Greek mythology, the god Zeus took the form of a swan to
> seduce or rape Leda. She was later said to bear his children,
> Polydeuces and Helen of Troy.
>
> Some versions of the story suggest they were formed in eggs.
>
> Miss Mehta said the myth of Leda’s rape by Zeus was an acceptable form
> of erotica in Victorian times. However, this argument failed to
> impress the police."
>
> It would fail to impress me too. I've never heard the legend either!

You've never heard of the legend of Leda and the Swan? I'm shocked. I
thought you were a retired school teacher - you seem a little
uneducated. Presumably you have heard of the Greek Myths?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leda_and_the_Swan

[pensive hamster]

(Sorry clicked wrong button)

On Apr 29, 12:03 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
>

> http://tinyurl.com/bmowvpl
>
> According to the Telegraph report ther might be a prima facie case:
>
> "According to Greek mythology, the god Zeus took the form of a swan to
> seduce or rape Leda. She was later said to bear his children,
> Polydeuces and Helen of Troy.
>
> Some versions of the story suggest they were formed in eggs.
>
> Miss Mehta said the myth of Leda’s rape by Zeus was an acceptable form
> of erotica in Victorian times. However, this argument failed to
> impress the police."
>
> It would fail to impress me too. I've never heard the legend either!
>

You've never heard of the legend of Leda and the Swan? I'm shocked. I
thought you were a retired school teacher - you seem a little
uneducated. Presumably you have heard of the Greek Myths?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leda_and_the_Swan

> Strikes me that the gallery has been seeking a little free publicity
> and the Telegraph has obliged.

How would that work? Perhaps you are suggesting that the gallery
bribed the policeman on the bus to pretend to be alarmed at the
picture. If it is the picture at the top of this webpage, it seems
quite tasteful to me:

http://www.screamlondon.com/exhibitions/artist/derrick-santini

Maybe if you were a bit autistic (or whatever the correct medical term
might be) and were a staunch literalist, unable to comprehend the
nature of myth and allegory, then the image might be a bit
disconcerting. As no doubt would much of art and culture.

[Brave New Britain]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:46:40 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

This is what it looks like, in case you are wondering:
http://www.screamlondon.com/exhibitions/past/derrick-santini-metamorphosis/

--
Brave New Britain

[Steve Walker]

"Stephen Wolstenholme" <st...@npsl1.com> wrote in message

news:brcqp75tmm0g6da6d...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:11:29 +0100, Andy Burns
> <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Mel Rowing wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns<usenet.aug2...@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://telegraph.co.uk/culture/9232512/pervy-swan.html
>>>
>>> Handy tip thanks!
>>
>>Following the discussion on .moderated, do we have authorisation to
>>follow such "pared-down" links?
>
> We don't need authorisation.

If you construct your own link which reveals a page which the other party
did not wish you to see (eg the Norwich football strip case) then you might
end up in court. Not saying I agree with it, but that appears to be how
the law stands (in the view of some uklm posters anyway).

[Mel Rowing]

On Apr 29, 3:30 pm, pensive hamster <pensive_hams...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Apr 29, 12:03 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> [...]

> > Miss Mehta said the myth of Leda’s rape by Zeus was an acceptable form
> > of erotica in Victorian times. However, this argument failed to
> > impress the police."
>
> > It would fail to impress me too. I've never heard the legend either!
>
> You've never heard of the legend of Leda and the Swan? I'm shocked. I
> thought you were a retired school teacher - you seem a little
> uneducated. Presumably you have heard of the Greek Myths?

I remember class reading exercises around Ulyses, Hercules and the
Trojan horse but I was in primary school then. However, I never had
the advantage of a classical education if advantage be the appropriate
word. Even in those days I had a more down to earth utilitarian
outlook on life. I wanted to be an engineer but missed my maths 'A'
level.

> > Strikes me that the gallery has been seeking a little free publicity
> > and the Telegraph has obliged.

>How would that work? Perhaps you are suggesting that the gallery
>bribed the policeman on the bus to pretend to be alarmed at the
>picture. If it is the picture at the top of this webpage, it seems
>quite tasteful to me:

I'd put it in my garden if I were given it and grow something up it!
However, I wouldn't have it in the house.

The incident probaly never happened anyway. Police will neither
confirm or deny any dealings they have had with the public and
newspapers will bleieve anything they want to.

[totallyconfused]

I remember being shown 'Romeo and Juilet' from 1968. The next day a
girl in my class said 'Mrs T you never told us that they had underage
sex.' Mrs. T said 'hmm..we thought you would work it out and it would
be obvious.' So did Zeffirelli make art or porn? And doesn't that
mean possibly in the USA we were shown porn at school? (we were shown
the 'nude'/'uncut' version) This was around 1980. I then way allowed
to see 'All that Jazz'.

By the way, I think I know the greek myth...just in latin.

[Doug]

On Apr 29, 11:46 am, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
> police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
> police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
> suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
> the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.
>
> Sadly, the gallery kowtowed, even though no-one was arrested, and
> removed the artwork. A spokesperson said "[The police] stood there and
> didn’t leave until we took the piece down."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9232512/Mythical-swan-
> photo-taken-down-after-bestiality-fears.html
>

Seems this has been removed from the internet also.

>
> Why don't art galleries have the balls to say 'no'?
>
> Aren't there other art galleries prepared to display the photo and let
> the police do their worst?
>

Sadly the police often censor stuff and there is not much we can do
about it.

-- .
One person's managed democracy is another person's Police State,
where rights are replaced by concessions.

[MM]

Call it your daily brain work-out.

MM

[MM]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:13:15 -0700 (PDT), Doug <smi...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 29, 11:46 am, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
>> police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
>> police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
>> suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
>> the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.
>>
>> Sadly, the gallery kowtowed, even though no-one was arrested, and
>> removed the artwork. A spokesperson said "[The police] stood there and
>> didn’t leave until we took the piece down."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9232512/Mythical-swan-
>> photo-taken-down-after-bestiality-fears.html
>>
>Seems this has been removed from the internet also.

Nope.

>> Why don't art galleries have the balls to say 'no'?
>>
>> Aren't there other art galleries prepared to display the photo and let
>> the police do their worst?
>>
>Sadly the police often censor stuff and there is not much we can do
>about it.

Oh, yes there is! We can complain loudly, in numbers. But of course,
first it needs an art gallery with some guts to stick by its
convictions, which seem to have dwindled to nothing as soon as the
first helmet was noticed.

Look at the Lady Chatterley's Lover case, for instance. From the court
case: "The prosecution was ridiculed for being out of touch with
changing social norms..." This absolutely describes the police in
2012. They are largely philistines with absolutely no sense of
anything except throwing their weight around and being obnoxious
whenever and wherever they can. That's why their nickname is 'plod'.

MM

[Norman Wells]

MM wrote:

> Look at the Lady Chatterley's Lover case, for instance. From the court
> case: "The prosecution was ridiculed for being out of touch with
> changing social norms..." This absolutely describes the police in
> 2012. They are largely philistines with absolutely no sense of
> anything except throwing their weight around and being obnoxious
> whenever and wherever they can. That's why their nickname is 'plod'.

What 'being in touch with social norms' means is chasing the zeitgeist.
Things go in and out of favour with political correctness. At the same
time as the Lady Chatterley case, Nabukov's Lolita was considered
perfectly acceptable according to those same social norms. Now, I
guess, the reverse is true.

Just because something is 'a Greek classic' doesn't necessarily make it
acceptable now according to social norms. I'm sure there are a lot of
things that happened in ancient Greece that we would find repugnant,
just as there are many things we do now as a matter of course that they
would frown upon. It's how it is, and always will be.

[MM]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:23:46 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>MM wrote:
>
>> Look at the Lady Chatterley's Lover case, for instance. From the court
>> case: "The prosecution was ridiculed for being out of touch with
>> changing social norms..." This absolutely describes the police in
>> 2012. They are largely philistines with absolutely no sense of
>> anything except throwing their weight around and being obnoxious
>> whenever and wherever they can. That's why their nickname is 'plod'.
>
>What 'being in touch with social norms' means is chasing the zeitgeist.
>Things go in and out of favour with political correctness. At the same
>time as the Lady Chatterley case, Nabukov's Lolita was considered
>perfectly acceptable according to those same social norms.

No, it wasn't 'perfectly acceptable', by any stretch of the
imagination. Graham Greene reviewed the book in 1955, nominating it
one of the best three books of the year. John Gordon, editor of the
Sunday Express, read the review, sent to Paris for a copy of Lolita,
which he pronounced as "about the filthiest book I've ever read". He
went on to predict that anyone who published it or sold it in Britain
would certainly go to prison.

In 1956 the US authorities first seized, then released copies of the
book. In December France banned Lolita, auspiciously due to the
British Home Office kicking up a fuss that John Gordon had raised the
book's profile leading to British tourists bringing copies back into
the country. This underhand skulduggery between Britain and France was
related to the Suez Crisis, which tied the two countries together as
'partners in crime', so the one said to the other, "You scratch my
back..."

Back in the US and by now 1958, most reviews were favourable and so
Lolita took off, selling 100,000 copies in three weeks. Lolita was
never prosecuted in the US, but various public libraries banned it and
there were plenty of outraged citizens and puritanical politicians
making noise. A town in Texas, inconveniently named Lolita, thought
about changing it in case it was mistaken for a little girl. Groucho
Marx said he'd put off reading the book "...for six years, till she's
eighteen." Other comedians such as Milton Berle, Bob Hope, and Dean
Martin all had Lolita gags.

In Britain, Bernard Levin wrote a "superb defence of the novel" for
The Spectator, and in the end there was no obscenity trial, despite
much irate commentary from the typical philistines in the British
media. Now, of course, it's considered an American classic and Nabokov
a literary genius.
[based on source obtained via Google Books]

MM

[Norman Wells]

All you've done is confirm that it was perfectly acceptable at the time.
As I said.

If it came out as a new book now, I doubt if it would have anything like
as easy a ride. In fact, I'd expect it would be banned.

[Doug]

How can we stop the police trying to censor stuff often? There is very
little a citizen can do about police tactics in general, except
complain, and they certainly cant do it by voting.

[hug...@sonic.net]

On Sunday, April 29, 2012 3:46:40 AM UTC-7, MM wrote:
> The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
>
> police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
>
> police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
>
> suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
>
> the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.
>
>
>
> Sadly, the gallery kowtowed, even though no-one was arrested, and
>
> removed the artwork. A spokesperson said "[The police] stood there and
>
> didn’t leave until we took the piece down."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9232512/Mythical-swan-
>
> photo-taken-down-after-bestiality-fears.html
>
>
>

> Why don't art galleries have the balls to say 'no'?
>
>
>
> Aren't there other art galleries prepared to display the photo and let
>
> the police do their worst?
>
>
>

Police do the same work that was done against jesus in Gethsemane. How can Police continue to exist knowing this. Arresting a person for the kind of art they show is evil showing people that we are not in the land of the free. We are in the land of the unfree with police arresting whoever they can for whatever.

[hug...@sonic.net]

On Sunday, April 29, 2012 3:46:40 AM UTC-7, MM wrote:
> The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
>
> police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
>
> police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
>
> suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
>
> the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.
>
>
>
> Sadly, the gallery kowtowed, even though no-one was arrested, and
>
> removed the artwork. A spokesperson said "[The police] stood there and
>
> didn’t leave until we took the piece down."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9232512/Mythical-swan-
>
> photo-taken-down-after-bestiality-fears.html
>
>
>
> Why don't art galleries have the balls to say 'no'?
>
>
>
> Aren't there other art galleries prepared to display the photo and let
>
> the police do their worst?
>
>
>

> MM
Police do the same work that was done against Jesus in Gethsemane. How can Police continue to exist knowing this? Arresting a person for the kind of art they show is evil showing people that we are not in the land of the free. We are in the land of the unfree with police arresting whoever they can for whatever.

[hug...@sonic.net]

On Sunday, April 29, 2012 3:46:40 AM UTC-7, MM wrote:
> The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
>
> police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
>
> police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
>
> suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
>
> the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.
>
>
>
> Sadly, the gallery kowtowed, even though no-one was arrested, and
>
> removed the artwork. A spokesperson said "[The police] stood there and
>
> didn’t leave until we took the piece down."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9232512/Mythical-swan-
>
> photo-taken-down-after-bestiality-fears.html
>
>
>
> Why don't art galleries have the balls to say 'no'?
>
>
>
> Aren't there other art galleries prepared to display the photo and let
>
> the police do their worst?
>
>
>
> MM

People fearing zoosexuality - bestiality. That is it,...fear. Devils fear. Fear drives people to oppress the zoosexual.Luke 22:2: . And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. People yell death to the zoosexual. Fear is behind the words. They have sex. All life has sex.

[Cynic]

On 05/12/2013 18:30, hug...@sonic.net wrote:
> On Sunday, April 29, 2012 3:46:40 AM UTC-7, MM wrote:

>> The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
>> police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
>> police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
>> suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
>> the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.

Whilst the article shows a photo of the original classic *sculpture*,
the police were complaining about the *photograph* that the shop was
displaying, which is a "modern interpretation" of that sculpture which
is not quite as innocuous as the original work of art.

While I do not personally have any problem with pornography, I am well
aware that it is not something that is acceptable for public display in
a high-street shop window in the UK, and I do not think the police
officer over-reacted.

What percentage of UK parents would be happy with their children seeing
in a shop window the photograph that IIUC was the one on display, I wonder?

Here it is for you to decide:

http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article7684648.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Leda+A+Fool+for+Love.jpg

It probably *would* be prosecuted if found on a person's computer drive.

--
Cynic



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[White Spirit]

On 05/12/13 19:54, Cynic wrote:

> What percentage of UK parents would be happy with their children seeing
> in a shop window the photograph that IIUC was the one on display, I wonder?

> Here it is for you to decide:

> http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article7684648.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Leda+A+Fool+for+Love.jpg

At least I have a new desktop background for my work computer.

Thanks.

[MM]

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:54:35 +0000, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Which is a manifestation of how ridiculous the police are in such
cases, isn't it?

MM

[Eric the half a bee]

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:54:35 +0000, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 05/12/2013 18:30, hug...@sonic.net wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 29, 2012 3:46:40 AM UTC-7, MM wrote:
>
>>> The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
>>> police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
>>> police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
>>> suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
>>> the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.
>
>Whilst the article shows a photo of the original classic *sculpture*,
>the police were complaining about the *photograph* that the shop was
>displaying, which is a "modern interpretation" of that sculpture which
>is not quite as innocuous as the original work of art.
>
>While I do not personally have any problem with pornography, I am well
>aware that it is not something that is acceptable for public display in
>a high-street shop window in the UK, and I do not think the police
>officer over-reacted.
>
>What percentage of UK parents would be happy with their children seeing
>in a shop window the photograph that IIUC was the one on display, I wonder?

I would not

>
>Here it is for you to decide:
>
>http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article7684648.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Leda+A+Fool+for+Love.jpg
>
>It probably *would* be prosecuted if found on a person's computer drive.

I hope not.

[The Revd]

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:54:35 +0000, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 05/12/2013 18:30, hug...@sonic.net wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 29, 2012 3:46:40 AM UTC-7, MM wrote:
>
>>> The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
>>> police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
>>> police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
>>> suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
>>> the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.
>
>Whilst the article shows a photo of the original classic *sculpture*,
>the police were complaining about the *photograph* that the shop was
>displaying, which is a "modern interpretation" of that sculpture which
>is not quite as innocuous as the original work of art.
>
>While I do not personally have any problem with pornography,

Yes, we know your history.
<snigger>

[Ophelia]

"The Revd" <pee...@degenerate.Grik> wrote in message
news:0sk3a9hoc7rpki87m...@4ax.com...

<g>

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Judith]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:47:49 -0000, "Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>> Yes, we know your history.
>> <snigger>
>>
><g>

Silly cow - why on earth is that funny?


(Ophelia has a "life subscription" to the Daily Mail : wicked piss take which the dozy cow swallowed.)

[pull...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, 29 April 2012 11:46:40 UTC+1, MM wrote:
> The busybodies in the Metropolitan Police have been busy again. A
>
> police officer glimpsed an artwork from a bus and soon there were
>
> police officers turning up at the art gallery in Mayfair and
>
> suggesting that the gallery was 'condoning bestiality' by displaying
>
> the artwork. This, alleged the police, was 'an arrestable offence'.
>
>
>

> Sadly, the gallery kowtowed, even though no-one was arrested, and
>
> removed the artwork. A spokesperson said "[The police] stood there and
>
> didn’t leave until we took the piece down."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/9232512/Mythical-swan-
>
> photo-taken-down-after-bestiality-fears.html
>
>
>
> Why don't art galleries have the balls to say 'no'?
>
>
>
> Aren't there other art galleries prepared to display the photo and let
>
> the police do their worst?
>
>
>
> MM

Not as bad as woman with python
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2513173/Belly-dancing-Anna-Soderstrom-stole-Monty-Pythons-Terry-Jones-heart.html