Freud Painting

Freud Painting

(25.10.12) All this is about reporting pictures of child (sex)abuse. As we have seen with the accusations against Jimmy Saville, when ‘art’, artists and celebrities are involved it is easier to sweep it all under the carpet. A child pornographic picture is then to be considered ‘art’ and admired, and anybody who would have another opinion will be ignored. If someone less famous had been behind this picture he would long ago been in jail.

I will not print the picture here. On my website I do not present child pornographic pictures or pictures describing mental cruelty to children. But this is the text from the museum catalogue for the recent Lucian Freud exhibition: http://www.npg.org.uk/freudsite/exhibition.htm

             

LARGE INTERIOR, PADDINGTON

Freud explores the use of a high viewpoint in this portrait of his young daughter, Ib Boyt. She looks vulnerable, lying semi-naked in a foetal position. An overgrown plant towers above her. It has shed some of its dead leaves on to the paint-spattered floorboards. Her father’s presence is felt in the shape of the shabby jacket that hangs behind his daughter. An older Ib appears again later in the exhibition.

Oil on canvas, 1968-9

 

From: Lars Petersson [mailto:lars…..ail.com]

Sent: 26 April 2012 08:09

To: TEATHER, Sarah

Subject: abusive picture of a distressed child

Dear Sarah Teathers,

I am sure that you as the government’s responsible minister for the well being and protection of children (also against sexual abuse) will consider the following as serious and disturbing as I do myself. It is my hope that you will act accordingly. Last week I reported this to the police:

Recently (I cannot recall the exact day) I visited the London National

Portrait Gallery’s Lucian Freud Portrait exhibition. To my absolute

horror I found there a picture which, I presume, had it been presented

in any other circumstances than obviously an art gallery, would have

been subject to serious criminal investigation. As the art gallery

describes it themselves upon my wife’s complaint to them (She wrote: “I

was completely horrified by the painting of a semi naked child on a bare

floor in a stressed position with ‘evidence of the father’s presence”.):

“The painting depicts Lucian Freud’s daughter Isobel Boyt. She recalled

the experience of sitting for this portrait in Jake Auerbach’s film

‘Lucian Freud Portraits’, and here she spoke of the hours of boredom in

the sittings for this painting. Later she looked back on the experience

fondly, and as a woman sat for her father again in other paintings….”

(also in similar position, I understand…)

On your Metropolitan Police website I read the following:

“Non-photographic child sexual abuse images (drawings and

computer-generated imagery) hosted in the UK Don’t ignore it, report it!

This text immediately concerned the web, but it cannot be more

acceptable to depict/paint a stressed naked child – who had posed for

hours in this way for her own father – in a famous art gallery. Or can

it? I am well aware of legislation around the issue of indecent,

pornographic pictures (photographs) of children. I know the possession

of such child pornography – for example down loaded on a computer – is

illegal and will be prosecuted. My question is: is the possession of a

(highly professional) painted picture (portrait) of a specific, named

child – lying with naked bottom in a stressed position on a bare floor

in – as described, and obvious for the viewer – the ‘presence of her

father’, different? And, if so, why? I understand that an ‘artistic’

photograph of a child in that position would have been considered as

outright child abuse and child pornography and that even the possession

of such picture would be illegal and subject to prosecution. Therefore,

my next question is: does that go for a painting as described as well, or is painted art

above the law? If one painter is allowed to paint his child in that

position for hours, where will the law and the prosecution service draw

the line for who is not to be allowed to do the same? Who is to be

charged for child abuse and who not? After coming across this case I am

very upset and would be very grateful if you would advice me of the

police’s opinion and also advice what next step you intend to take.

Looking forward to your response to this. It is my absolute conviction

that this image should be removed from the exhibition immediately and be

confiscated by Scotland Yard. For the benefit of child protection I hope

you agree. The message must be clear. Stop sexual abuse of children.

Nobody must be above the law.

Sincerely

Lars G Petersson

…………………………….

I got following response. May I say, I do not think that I should have to argue more why I think a picture like that constitutes child abuse – not only in showing it on public display, but also having in mind that it has taken hours to paint – and, in that respect, even worse, the painter was known for having his objects ‘sitting’ even while he painted the back grounds. My question to you, as minister for children, is: will you take this seriously and will you dare declare that not even art is above the law? Letting pictures like that pass for art is, in my opinion, to let children down. It is giving the message that such behaviour towards a child is acceptable – people even pay to come and see the result of it.

_______________________________________________________________

Dear Mr Petersson

We are in receipt of your complaint against the portrait by Mr Freud.

You described the image as of a semi-naked child in stressed position.

I have looked up the relevant legislation on the Police Legal database

and enclose it here.

” Q1. Where can I find the new offence?

The offence is defined at section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act

2009. (ref: section 62)

Q2. What images does the new offence of possession of prohibited images

of children capture?

The offence aims to capture non-photographic visual depictions of child

sexual abuse.

To meet the terms of the offence a prohibited image must:

a) be pornographic

b) depict one or more of a list of proscribed acts

c) be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene nature

A prohibited ‘image’ does not include an indecent photograph, or

indecent pseudo-photograph of a child, nor tracings or derivatives of

such photographs and pseudo-photographs. (ref: section 62(1) – (8))

Q3. What is meant by the term ‘pornographic’?

The first element of the offence is an objective test for the jury that

the material was pornographic, which means it must reasonably be assumed

to have been produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual

arousal. This test should eliminate most works of art, news and

mainstream documentary programmes and films from prosecution. (ref:

section 62(3))”

Whilst this is not exhaustive for it to be investigated it would need to

first meet the above test.

Second it must be on the above list. Please find enclosed section of act

“62(6) An image falls within this subsection if it –

(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child’s

genitals or anal region, or

(b) portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).

62(7) Those acts are –

(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex

with or in the presence of a child;

(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a

child;

(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child

with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;

(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or

anus of a person with a part of a person’s body or with anything else;

(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with

an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex

with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a

child. ”

And

“Q4. Are ‘grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene

character’ intended to be three separate concepts, any one of which

could satisfy the requirements of the offence?

Grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character are

not intended to be read as three separate concepts. ‘Grossly offensive’

and ‘disgusting’ are examples of ‘an obscene character’ and not

alternatives to it. They are drawn from the ordinary dictionary

definition of ‘obscene’ and are intended to convey a non-technical

definition of that concept. (ref: section 62(c))”

I am not sure from your description that the image falls under the above

criteria.

Are there any act of the above proscribed acts shown in the painting?

In the absence of further I would suggest that the first port of call

might be to discuss the matter with the staff at the National Portrait

Gallery.

If, however, the painting does meet all the criteria above then the

Police would be happy to investigate.

Thank you for taking the time to raise this with us and should you have

any further queries please let us know.

City of Westminster & Royal Parks IBO

…………..

Looking forward to your response. I will welcome immediate action and investigation into this matter.

Sincerely

Lars G Petersson

______________________________________________

From: omar.deedat@parliament.uk

To: lar@il.com

Subject: RE: abusive picture of a distressed child

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:02:31 +0000

Dear Lars Petersson,

Thank you very much for your email to Sarah Teather MP.  Sarah has asked me to reply and to thank you for drawing her attention to this issue.

Sarah would be happy to raise your concerns but would first ask you to confirm your postal address in the constituency.  We will then be able to make the necessary enquiries on your behalf.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Omar Deedat

Head of Office

Tel: 020 8459 0455

Fax: 020 8830 3280

Office of Sarah Teather, Member of Parliament for Brent Central

Minister of State for Children and Families

_________________________________________________

From: Lars Petersson [mailto:larscom]

Sent: 26 April 2012 17:06

To: DEEDAT, Omar

Subject: RE: abusive picture of a distressed child

Dear Mr Deedat,

I do not address Ms Teather in a capacity of residency in her constituency. I address her as minister responsible for children in this country. I expect this to be looked at in the interest of child protection. Who is allowed to abuse children, by having them pose half naked on the floor, and who not? Is art above the law?

Sincerely

Lars G Petersson

________________________________________________

Dear Lars,

Thank you for your email to Sarah Teather MP. As your message relates to Sarah’s role as a Minister in the Department for Education rather than as constituency MP I have forwarded your message to Sarah’s ministerial office who will ensure that it is dealt with by the relevant Minister in the Department.

Omar Deedat

Head of Office

Office of Sarah Teather, Member of Parliament for Brent Central

Minister of State for Children and Families

___________________________________________________

From: lars………mail.com
To: omar.deedat@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: abusive picture of a distressed child
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:29:50 +0200

Thanks Omar,
Looking forward to hearing what action Sarah will take.
Kind regards
Lars

_________________________________________

From: Unmonitored.ACCOUNT@education.gsi.gov.uk
To: lars…………com
Subject: Acknowledgement of Case Transfer (Case Ref: 2012/0024786)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:38:13 +0100

Dear Mr  Petersson

Thank you for your correspondence. Please be aware that we have passed on your comments to the Home Office for them to provide an answer. Contact details are as follows:

Home Office……….

Regards

Jayne Watson


 

From: PS, Teather-DIARY
Sent: 26 April 2012 18:08
To: MINISTERS
Cc: WOODWARD, Carol
Subject: RE: abusive picture of a distressed child **Carol confirmed not referral case as child not at risk**

TO please – Carol, I don’t regard this as urgent but let me know if you disagree!

Alistair Kelsey

Assistant Diary Manager and Correspondence Officer

Private Office of Sarah Teather MP

Minister of State for Children and Families

______________________

From: Unmonitored.ACCOUNT@education.gsi.gov.uk
To: larsgpetersson@hotmail.com
Subject: Acknowledgement of Case Transfer (Case Ref: 2012/0024786)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 10:38:13 +0100

Dear Mr  Petersson

Thank you for your correspondence. Please be aware that we have passed on your comments to the Home Office for them to provide an answer. Contact details are as follows:

Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Telephone General Enquiries x 020 7035 4848
Textphone: x 020 7035 4742
Fax: 020 7035 4745
Email: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Regards

Jayne Watson

______________________________________________________

From: larscom
To: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: FW: Acknowledgement of Case Transfer (Case Ref: 2012/0024786)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:12:02 +0200

Dear Sir/Madam,

Any news? Have heard nothing from you since the case was transferred.
Sincerely
Lars G Petersson

___________________________________________________________

From: Lars Petersson [mailto:lars.com]
Sent: 08 June 2012 09:54
To: Public Enquiries (CD)
Subject: FW: Acknowledgement of Case Transfer (Case Ref: 2012/0024786)

once more and maybe I will get a reply

________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: Acknowledgement of Case Transfer (Case Ref: 2012/0024786)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:34:20 +0100
From: Public.Enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
To: lars@om

Dear Correspondent,

I can confirm that we have received your email, and have passed it on for attention in due course.

Public Enquiries Duty Officer

Communications Directorate

Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF

Tel: +44 (0)20 7035 4732

Web: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

—–Original Message—–


 

From: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
To: lars@com
Subject: FW: Mr L G Peterson-SPPU-Acknowledgement of Case Transfer (Case Ref: 2012/0024786)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:58:53 +0100

Mr L G Peterson,

Reference : T8216/12

Date: 18-Jun-2012

TREAT OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE

Thank you for your e-mail of 13/06/2012 11:42:42 AM regarding…..

The matters you have raised are the responsibility of Ministry of Justice.

We have therefore transferred your e-mail to
general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk, who will arrange for a reply to be
sent to you.

Transfer Desk

(isn’t it great, they even have a “transfer desk” to do the job, get rid of anything difficult. Sir Humpfrey would have been envious….. From that on I have heard nothing more…. It was transfered to oblivion. Probably the same as some people hoped for would happen with the accusations against the discjockey Saville. I wonder: why?)