60 Reasons why the McCanns should never have published THAT photo (the 'MAKE-UP '/ Lolita photo)

1. Can the McCanns be thinking straight?
   
   Three years have passed since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and her parents are determined that the search for her should not slip out of the world's headlines. To keep the story alive, they have just released a moody video, complete with a musical soundtrack, which includes a photograph of the three-year-old wearing make-up and gazing into the camera. It is that image which, predictably, has featured in the media,
   
   It seems a bizarre and unsettling development. Clearly, Kate and Gerry McCann have been living through a nightmare of unimaginable horror and perhaps, even after three years, they are not thinking straight. If so, someone should surely have pointed out to them that, in a case over which paedophilia casts an obvious shadow, it looks downright weird when a photograph which has the effect of sexualising the missing child becomes part of the campaign to find her.
   
   Obviously, the make-up game and the photograph were innocent at the time but, when the private picture is released into the public domain in these circumstances, something altogether nastier kicks in.
   
   What was the point of this exercise, apart from getting more news coverage? At a time when there is justified concern over Primark selling Little Miss Naughty padded bras for eight-year-olds and allegations that Playboy brands are being aimed at the primary school market, the circulation of this can only feed prurience of the very worst kind.
   
   Maybe it was a misjudgement, but it confirms a niggling sense that the McCanns' publicity–at-all-costs campaign has seriously lost its way.
   
   [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com.... d-1961380.html][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] d-1961380.html[/url]
   

1. People these days are increasingly protective of practically ANY image of children, parents are forbidden from taking photographs at school plays, photos in which children are visible in background shots at tourist attractions have been confiscated etc. Practically any image of a child is seen as being of interest to those with paedophile tendencies. I don't claim to understand why this is the case, but that's the way that things appear to be.
   
   In my view, which is of course completely out of step with the mainstream thinking on these issues, a child wearing make-up, or adult clothes certainly does not in itself constitute a pornographic or inappropriate image. However, if a fully clothed child standing in a street can be considered material of interest for a paedophile, then photographs of this nature should certainly fall within the same category. I am male, and like practically every other male that I have socialised with since from the age of about 6, to a greater or lesser we have all been exposed to pornography. I'm not great fan of pornography, nor have I been exposed to a great deal, but I could certainly give you a pretty good description of the stereotypical images that the producers of this product tend to use. It's a definite genre, with a definite style, camera angles, lighting, model poses etc.
   
   I know what picture of a child playing looks like, my parents have albums of pictures of my sister as a child playing with make-up, dressing up. I also understand when I'm seeing the deliberate sexualisation of a child. I also know which end of that spectrum that those images lie.
   
   I've previously critisised people for expressing these sorts of views, but when you see the three Madeleine pictures in that video in close succession you start asking: what's the probability that this is just some sort of accidental pose? I really don't like the answer.
   
   I'm not a photographer, nor a film maker, nor actively involved in the media, and so if I can pick up on these references, then Jon Corner [who produced the latest Madeleine video] most certainly can.
   
2. I am getting angry now at the pro-McCanns folk saying that only someone with a diseased mind would see that the photo of Madeleine was inappropriate. It is NOT just a photo of a little girl playing dress-up. It is a photo taken by a professional photographer who has taken ''odd'' photos of Maddie before and clearly should never have been put in the public domain, as people like child expert Mark Williams-Thomas and Terence Blacker in the 'Independent' are now saying.
   

4. "Cannot see any reason how the 2 new images of Madeleine can be justified - given the scale of sexual exploitation of children & child erotica."

5. “On the eve of Madeleine's disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen”

6. Am trying to find out now who gave advise to use the make up photo- so damaging- as I know what it will become

7. Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels-ill advised again

8. I didn't realise this till I saw the pictures myself and thought [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.], and then had a look and saw that others were also concerned. I cannot think why they have thought it suitable to use these images.

9. some months ago I made comment about Janes Tanner's comments (repeated sexual innuendo) in her interviews with the Portuguese police. I stated it was almost as though she had no concept that to constantly joke/repeat sexual innuendo whilst in a police interview on a possible child abduction was not normal...she had no sense that what she was saying would not sound 'good'. It was normal to her!!

Now the pictures of Madeleine in make up clearly put on for her at the age of three. The same can be suggested. That the parents found this behaviour 'normal' and hence saw no possible problems with releasing such images. It is normal to them!!

10. It doesn't look as if she's 'having fun' to me in that picture.

11. I think the look on her face is as, if not more, worrying than the make-up.
No way does she look like a child playing or having fun.

12. If Madeleine McCannis still alive the Daily Mail are putting her at risk with that disgusting pic. Good parents would demand it`s removal.

13. This is very sick

14. This case gets more unbelievable as time goes on. I cannot believe that the press did not crawl all over the latest pictures -describing the photos a 'grown up looking' Madeleine without further comment just beggars belief. Even my other half who maintains only a passing interest in the case commented on the unsavoury aspects of the photos

15. There is tasteless, and then there is the kind of tastelessness that is just plain unpalatable.
Their advisors are not only completely useless to Madeleine's memory, but they are most detrimental.
Team McCann have got a nerve to lecture anybody on censorship. They need to start with themselves.

16. Yet I noticed that as well, very well applied eyeshadow as well and lipstick on a toddler, not really appropriate given what has happened..

17. what a weird photo to release of Madeleine wearing eyeshadow. Why not release something more appropriate??

18. reminds me of JonBenét Ramsey beauty pageant photos, that kind of images could entice sexual predators. Disgusting photos...

19. Try 2 imagine McCann & Brit media reaction had Murat being found in possession of Lolita image? But it’s ok for Jon Corner 2 have them. Hmm

20. The McCann's think Madeleine has been snatched by a paedophile - and then their good friend Jon Corner chooses to use these inappropriate photos of her in this video?
You couldn't make it up!

21. Absolutely sickening!

22. That makes my skin crawls. Its just so Jon Bennett Ramsey!

23. Justice Hogg What do you say about the make-up Maddie? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] After all, you are her legal guardian.

24. The latest photo mccanns have released makes for very uncomfortable viewing. Alongside the Gaspars statements, something is very wrong here.

25. Oh my goodness, what mother would allow a photograph of their young daughter to be distributed on the internet like this, it just makes me shiver. Can't beleive what they are doing. Surely social services should step in if this is what they are up to.

26. I don't know which campaign is more dangerous for her, If this one with a 'Maddie lolita' or the first picture you release to the press showing the eye defect

27. IMO media promoting Lolita Maddie photo are promoting child abuse. Katie Price got slaughtered for doing d same with her daughter

28. Why would they do this, yes!!! why would they do this?…that is the question that needs to be answered.

29. Saw this blue eye shadow picture on Sky news and had to surpress the urge to vomit. Is there no end to the tacky second class behaviour of her parents and the likes of Jon Corner. Is it humanly possible, that this is what has become of the memory of Madeleine Mccann, whether alive or possibly deceased. Is there no limit to the injustices done to this little girl.

30. It's not the fact that she's wearing make up that's the problem. Most tiny tots like to play at being grown up. My daughters did when they were kids. It's cute and funny to see them and their terribly comical attempts at applying mummy's make up.

31. It's the fact that these photo's of Maddie could never be described as cute or funny or comical. They appear to be simply photos of an expertly made up child who has been placed into provocative model style posing. There is no cuteness about them, no fun. No natural smiling or laughing.

32. They are disturbing....

33. Clearly she didn't put it on herself (my 9 and 12 year old daughters are not even as adept as this at putting on make up. Or my wife for that matter).

34. Which 3-year old knows how to apply perfect make-up like that?

35. Now, that would be considered a good one if done by 7 or 8 year old, but for 3 year old, no way they can do even that.

36. At least most three year olds I know doddle lipstick on their cheeks in addition to lips because they cannot aim properly, also they dont understand the signficant/purpose of each make up. The 3 year olds I know usually mess with powder, perfume, or lipstick rarely shadows because they dont know how to aim at the eye lids.

37. Something doesnt add up. That make up is not done by herself. an adult had done it for her. No child gets anything straight on their face at that age. I find it creepy that some adults had deemed it necessary to apply make up for her just for the home video...why cant she be filmed in her natural look?

38. So they are saying a 3 year old put that eye shadow and make up on, how is this video helping her? there is something not right with this video, i'm convinced!

39. Still do not understand the purpose of the photo with the blue eyeshadow.
Anybody noticed that on this said photo, the right side of the background seems to show the
same wall than the wall in the new released video. Right in the beginning the video shows Praia de Luz and one can see wall very similar to the photo. So was the photo taken while on holiday?
Is the photo meant to remember somebody who was there, when the photo was taken?

40. I'm looking at her hair. The fringe is kind of grown out and comes to beneath her eyes, just like in "the last photo". If you look at pictures of her a few weeks before, in Donegal, her fringe isn't that long. If it was taken before the holiday, it must have been JUST before IMO.

41. It is a year since Jacqui Smith invited the TV psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos to head a 'fact-finding' review. Her report describes a world where young girls who can barely walk are first cajoled into wearing high heels and T-shirts with Playboy motifs, before progressing into a grim future dominated by an internet-based youth culture that pressurises them into dress and behaviour which defines them overwhelmingly as sexual objects.

42. These people are beyond contempt. How do staff at CEOP look their own children in the eye, or sleep at night ? I am disgusted to be British

43. Does Jim Gamble CEOPapprove of Lolita picture of Madeleine McCann? Will he b updating CEOPwebsite with the picture?

44. If CEOP endorse this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] PR for a supposed missing child then their role in child protection has to be questioned!

45. Where is theC EOPpanic button to report this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Wearing makeup! FGS!

46. could it be the internet paedo hunter CEOPUK Jim Gamble advising the McCanns?

47. For what its worth, I'm not convinced this photo is of Madeleine - someone said recently on another forum that anything put out by TM should be never be taken at face value, after 3 years I think many of us are all too familiar with the smoke and mirrors games they play. I don't know what they hope to achieve by releasing this photo, perhaps they are so confident that they will not be challenged about anything that they are starting to push the boundaries or, are could it be that they are seriously starting to lose the plot? What I do know is that it is imperative that Jim Gamble, as head of CEOP, speaks out and makes it clear that his organisation does not endorse the McCanns' decision to use this unsettling photo in their campaign - should he stay silent on this matter it is confirmation, imo, that his allegiance to the McCanns is as strong as ever.

48. Jim Gamble and latest McCann pic – you`ve got to see the funny side.

49. Jon Corner may b able 2 answer ur question on who advised McCanns to release THAT picture. He's friends with Esther McVey

50. It is all becoming surreal, and near unbearable.

51. Nothing in this case has upset me quite as much as this. I am blessed with two daughters who are the light of my life; there is no way I could bring myself to treat them in this manner. Is there any other mother out there who would invite the world to peruse such a suggestive picture of her beloved child, while claiming that that child has been abducted, presumably by a paedophile?

52. These photos of a made-up, posed Madeleine turn my stomach. Poor little mite.

53. The picture is an obvious and not very good photo-shop type job.
Why would they do this?

54. People have been speculating that the latest Maddie picture has been photo-shopped.
They've been focusing mostly on the eye area.
Now, I haven't a clue about these things - but whilst magnifying the picture to get a better look - noticed that one side of her neck looks a bit strange.

55. Does this normally happen when you magnify a pic?

56. Look closely at the photo of made-up Madeleine with a picture editing program.
Magnify it to 400%
a- The girl on the photo has no eyelashes. Colour has been digitally added on top, hiding them. Compare with another pic of Madeleine, she has noticeable eyelashes, which have now disappeared.
b- No trace of coloboma
c- Two obvious brush tool traces above the eye on the right of the pic.
d- pixels of the face (very smooth) do not match pixels outside the face.
e- compare eyebrows on the pic with eyebrows on another photo of Madeleine. They don't match.
There are other mismatches.

57. When you think about it the lovely Kate probably pays a small fortune for her cosmetics so it is very unlikely that a three year old would be allowed to play with them, so what we have left is old make up. Does anyone remember a few years back when us girls were warned to discard our old make after a certain time because it becomes out of date and may cause a reaction – yes Kate cosmetics now come with a sell by date. So it is unlikely that the child of two doctors would be playing around with old make up, but then again this is the same couple who claim to carry the soiled nappies of two year olds in the same car boot as their badly packed up fresh meat. Is all of this within the boundaries of responsible parenting? So Kate, did the press lie?, is this a false photo? or was that little girl allowed to play with old make-up that should have been discarded? Even then, If Maddie applied that herself she must be a genius. Pull the other one.

58. What little girl aged 3 buys make up? and mothers do have the authority to say whether they can wear it or not.

59. Jesus, we've gone through decades of fighting for equality only to turn little girls into young woman before they reach puberty. What went wrong?

60. And whoever decided to put out that photo certainly was thinking straight.
In fact if I may say so the person is rather stupid to think that could make a change to the search.
But of course I forgot it was never about the search, it was about marketing Maddie.

61. How did Jon Corner happen to be around on that day she was messing around with make up that he was ever ready to make the home video?

62. Most importantly, why the need to release such a video? Does it enhance the search? I shouldnt think so. In fact it makes it worst. Who in their right mind searching for their child would release that kind of pic? It's sending the wrong message because people looking out for a child will naturally expect to be looking for a nutural looking 6 year old and not a mini adult.

63. Wouldn't the most effective video appeal be, after all this time, one where the McCanns directed a message to Madeleine and her abductor/s. Surely a heartfelt direct appeal/plea would work far better.

64. Seriously cannot get my head around this new video, it does nothing except promote images of Madeleine that would appeal to plenty of paedophiles ...beggars belief, it really does

ENDS

I don't think it's fair to discuss an innocent picture in this way. Most kids play with make up these days, I did myself thirty years ago. To be honest I feel more worried about the sick comments on this photo. Make up for kids is available in most toy shops under, "creative play", and little girls love it. My daughter was allowed to play with makeup and hang beads around her neck, complete with clip on earings and bracelets. Little girls want to copy their mums, feeding their dolls, changing their dolls, pushing their dolls pushchair etc. Kids want to do many adult things hence the toys such as cooking, sweet shops etc pretending they have their own sweet shop, firemen doctors, nurses and I bet even a few here practiced their abilities as superman, batman , pc plod and such. If Kate allowed |Madeleine to put makeup on or she raided the makeup bag either way it was a comical photo that would probably have been taken to show the family what she had been up to and get the usual oohs and bless her comments. For everyone who is commenting about who took the picture, there are working cameras in toy shops for 3 year olds maybe she took it herself, and even if not I can't see the benefits of discussing an innocent photo in such a sexual manner.

Inappropriate use of photo, but not inappropriate family snap shot of Madeleine….which is how it appears to me. Many parents of little girls will have such photos, the application of make-up as part of dress-up and play is part and parcel of being a little girl.

ETA, some of the comments in the OP are plain stupid.

Who is the author of the essay above. It just ends with 'ENDS'. No accreditation to its author at all

"cannot get my head around" is not an expression that Tony Bennett would use, so I assumed the essay was by another

twinkles wrote:...'cannot get my head around' is not an expression that Tony Bennett would use, so I assumed the essay was by another

Our article should have made all this clearer.

The first item is an editorial in the 'Independent'; the link is given.

What follows is an assortment of comments and reactions from the general public at the time, from sources such as responses to online newspaper articles, forum comments and tweets. I think we included some of Mark Williams-Thomas's comments, I'm not 100% sure.

TB - Oh I see

Well, I'm sure those people could not put their names to the comments as they seem like something from a school for expelled children. I instinctively ignore people who say "I cannot get my head around" - don't know why but it gives a horrible visual. Perhaps if they said I cannot get so-and-so around my head as in head attire, it would be different.

And the comment about M's twisted kneck, no neck, no eyelashes and enlarging the pic 400 times, what the heck? Why?

Sorry but all i see is a young girl who has played with her mothers make up, (admittedly overdone it). There is nothing remotely sexual provocative about the photograph.
i appreciate the work Tony has done and the way he has highlighted things but to me he is going about this totally wrong and will hurt the campaign for Justice For Madeleine if it is passed to the press for instance. To me it is wrong to suggest anything than a innocent photo.
Before any one says i am a McCann supporter i am not. I just do not want things that will ridicule the campaign done by the members and posters who want them bought to justice that hurt Madeleine

I think the MF's main point is that the photo was an inappropriate choice for a child whom was allegedly abducted by paedophile/s.

How many paedophiles put make-up on their victims, and how many paedophiles would find the picture erotic?

What about all the country fayres where there are activities for the children, including face-painting, making lion faces with paint is the favourite; children queue up for these and keep the face-paint on until they reach home. Children also have their own face painting kits, the packet says from 3yrs onward.

kangdang wrote:I think the MF's main point is that the photo was an inappropriate choice for a child whom was allegedly abducted by paedophile/s.

That is okay but another member on here (peter Mac is it) questioned if Madeleine was straddling the person taking the photo. Please just think of what that really means and what impact that could have.

Yes I read that unpalatable comment

crikey wrote:

kangdang wrote:I think the MF's main point is that the photo was an inappropriate choice for a child whom was allegedly abducted by paedophile/s.

That is okay but another member on here (peter Mac is it) questioned if Madeleine was straddling the person taking the photo. Please just think of what that really means and what impact that could have.

Not surprising from an ex-cop

crikey wrote:Sorry but all I see is a young girl who has played with her mother's make up, (admittedly overdone it). There is nothing remotely sexually provocative about the photograph. I appreciate the work Tony has done and the way he has highlighted things but to me he is going about this totally wrong

All we did in that article ('60 comments') was to reproduce what an 'Independent' editorial thought about the picture - and what 60 other people thought about it, including a reputed criminologist. There is no comment of ours within the article, we are just inviting the public to click on that article and see what other people have written.

So can you point out which is Thomas's quote then please? Why bring the issue of the picture up when surely you know that it is a non starter for what is being suggested?

Clearly Mark Williams-Thomas had serious concerns about the photos, in particular the one of her wearing make-up. I had another look at this video and cannot understand why, of all the photos Jon Corner must have had available to him, he chose those - I go with the theory that they were selected for a reason, most likely a warning to others in the group to stay quiet or else.

Or quite possibly that young children adorned in make up is deemed acceptable and a common occurrence in the circles in which he frequents.

I have said repeatedly that I do not find the photo of Madeleine sinister per se. What I do find troublesome is the McCanns et al's utilisation of it. Specifically, that they have frequently suggested over the past three years that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile or paedophile ring. Why would any parent/guardian opt to promote an image of a child, one that could be perceived as sexualised by the deviant mind, whom may have been abducted for sexual gratification? Williams-Thomas was correct to raise concerns.

kangdang wrote:Or quite possibly that young children adorned in make up is deemed acceptable and a common occurrence in the circles in which he frequents.

I have said repeatedly that I do not find the photo of Madeleine sinister per se. What I do find troublesome is the McCanns et al's utilisation of it. Specifically, that they have frequently suggested over the past three years that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile or paedophile ring. Why would any parent/guardian opt to promote an image of a child, one that could be perceived as sexualised by the deviant mind, whom may have been abducted for sexual gratification? Williams-Thomas was correct to raise concerns.

Though I am not impressed by WT. At least he got one thing right.

twinkles wrote:How many paedophiles put make-up on their victims, and how many paedophiles would find the picture erotic?

What about all the country fayres where there are activities for the children, including face-painting, making lion faces with paint is the favourite; children queue up for these and keep the face-paint on until they reach home. Children also have their own face painting kits, the packet says from 3yrs onward.

What about the country fayres and face painting? We are talking about children being sexualised to make them look attractive to other paedophiles here, not children having their faces painted to look like lions and tigers and bears.

Thousands upon thousands of paedophiles put make-up on children, in order for other paedophiles to find them ''erotic'', and to make extortionate amounts of money where possible. One cannot believe you can still be so naive on this heinous subject when there is a wealth of information sitting here for you to read.

Judge Mental wrote:

twinkles wrote:How many paedophiles put make-up on their victims, and how many paedophiles would find the picture erotic?

What about all the country fayres where there are activities for the children, including face-painting, making lion faces with paint is the favourite; children queue up for these and keep the face-paint on until they reach home. Children also have their own face painting kits, the packet says from 3yrs onward.

What about the country fayres and face painting? We are talking about children being sexualised to make them look attractive to other paedophiles here, not children having their faces painted to look like lions and tigers and bears.

Thousands upon thousands of paedophiles put make-up on children, in order for other paedophiles to find them ''erotic'', and to make extortionate amounts of money where possible. One cannot believe you can still be so naive on this heinous subject when there is a wealth of information sitting here for you to read.

Judge,
You seem well informed on these matters, so it is to Your Learned Self that I address my question. Surely paedophiles are attracted to children (as opposed to men/women of their own age) because they are children. If that is the case, why would a child made up to look 'sexy' and adult be attractive to a paedophile? May not this whole debate about whether or not the photos are 'inappropriate' be going off on the wrong tangent because, none of us here being paedophiles, we are assuming (possibly wrongly) that presenting young children as miniature versions of sexually mature women makes them attractive to paedophiles? These may be stupid questions and I don't have the answers to them - nor do I particularly want to do any research into this disturbing area, but I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter.

Daoud wrote:Judge, Surely paedophiles are attracted to children (as opposed to men/women of their own age) because they are children. If that is the case, why would a child made up to look 'sexy' and adult be attractive to a paedophile? May not this whole debate about whether or not the photos are 'inappropriate' be going off on the wrong tangent because, none of us here being paedophiles, we are assuming (possibly wrongly) that presenting young children as miniature versions of sexually mature women makes them attractive to paedophiles?

We may be misisng an important point here. I take your point and, like yourself, neither know nor want to know how paedophiles get their kicks, but, yes, I have read that some like young girls to be dressed up and made up - very distasteful subject I know, and I don't really want to see it discussed further on this forum.

However, if you looked through all the 60-plus comments from various members of the public re those Madeleine photos, you'll see that many of them were concerned, rightly IMO, that to show these was part of a process of the early sexualisation of children, and therefore should not have been displayed, especially the one with heavy make-up.

Concern has recently centred around e.g. girls as young as 7 wearing padded bras, being sold openly in supermarkets, and young girls wearing T-shirts with such slogans as: 'So many boys. So little time'. The adults i.e. parents of these children apparently think this is a good laugh. Plus magazines targeted at girls as young as 9 and 10 which promote early sexualisation (see link below).

A Ms Linda Papadopoulos, less than a year ago, submitted an official report to the government about all the risks posed by the early sexualisation of children, here is a refererence:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have to say that I had some difficulty when trying to find some clothes for my THREE year old niece due to inappropriate clothing and slogans etc. Unbelievable but true.

For me this all ties in with the last governments policy on teaching five year olds sex education, the policy about if a child is abused and understands what is going on the perpertrator gets a more lenient sentence, the movement to lower the age of consent, movements in some European countries, e.g. Germany, to try and promote acceptance of a father being able to touch his children in a sexual way, this is being promoted as normal and acceptable etc. etc. This is all part of a bigger picture for those who want to legalise paedophilia. imo

Tony Bennett wrote:

Daoud wrote:Judge, Surely paedophiles are attracted to children (as opposed to men/women of their own age) because they are children. If that is the case, why would a child made up to look 'sexy' and adult be attractive to a paedophile? May not this whole debate about whether or not the photos are 'inappropriate' be going off on the wrong tangent because, none of us here being paedophiles, we are assuming (possibly wrongly) that presenting young children as miniature versions of sexually mature women makes them attractive to paedophiles?

We may be misisng an important point here. I take your point and, like yourself, neither know nor want to know how paedophiles get their kicks, but, yes, I have read that some like young girls to be dressed up and made up - very distasteful subject I know, and I don't really want to see it discussed further on this forum.

However, if you looked through all the 60-plus comments from various members of the public re those Madeleine photos, you'll see that many of them were concerned, rightly IMO, that to show these was part of a process of the early sexualisation of children, and therefore should not have been displayed, especially the one with heavy make-up.

Concern has recently centred around e.g. girls as young as 7 wearing padded bras, being sold openly in supermarkets, and young girls wearing T-shirts with such slogans as: 'So many boys. So little time'. The adults i.e. parents of these children apparently think this is a good laugh. Plus magazines targeted at girls as young as 9 and 10 which promote early sexualisation (see link below).

A Ms Linda Papadopoulos, less than a year ago, submitted an official report to the government about all the risks posed by the early sexualisation of children, here is a refererence:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Tony,
If you quote my posts please indicate where you have edited them - a simple '...' to indicate omitted material is not hard to do. Thanks.

If I were certain or I pretended to be certain that my daughter had been abducted by a pedophile or a ring of pedophiles that's the kind of photo I would never disclose.....

Sorry if this is nit-picking, but if the photo had been photoshopped, then they could have inserted eyelashes in a top layer.

To me it looks like a little girl having fun with her mother at dressing up. All little girls do it and I guess most mothers have photographs of the sometimes hilarious results. I do of my daughter.

I do think they shouldn't have published that particular photo, but I have no promblem with the photo itself.

We may have photos of our children dressing up but the expression on their face is one of joy and laughter unlike the photo of Maddie.

Lester Lass wrote:Sorry if this is nit-picking, but if the photo had been photoshopped, then they could have inserted eyelashes in a top layer.

To me it looks like a little girl having fun with her mother at dressing up. All little girls do it and I guess most mothers have photographs of the sometimes hilarious results. I do of my daughter.

I do think they shouldn't have published that particular photo, but I have no promblem with the photo itself.

Well. that's that sorted out then, if you don't have a problem with it

May one ask why it is that you think they shouldn't have published that particular photo,?

As the mother of your daughter, would you be falling about in hilarity and having stitches over a photograph which turned out like this?

One notes you say this photograph looks like a little girl having fun with her mother at dressing up.

Have you been able to identify Madeleine's mother in this photograph anywhere? Or are you making an enormous assumption here? Is this photograph part of a family photograph which we have not been party to seeing yet?

Do you know how difficult it is to photoshop eyelashes into a photograph, without leaving a trace of your attempts?

Uh oh. Here he is again. With his lttle friend.

I may have said before, how a Policeman kicked a dead Yew bush in his garden whilst engaged in a very strange investigation into some illegal practice and remarked that, "Out there some f##king weirdo will be turned on by that bush".

Another Policeman and a defendents solicitor were in hysterics over some photographs taken to Boots for processing...(not a good move) ..which consisted of a man with a bath chain round his neck, home made red horns stuck to his head and an unmoved cat in front of his naked body. The defence was that the cat didn't look like it was in distress and the bloke was clearly bonkers.

My point being that, who knows what the picture means. I doubt if part of a dodgey child sex photo shoot it would ever have seen the light of day, and the computer hard drive would be down amongst the rusting U boats off Lisahally! But Mark W is entirely right that it is inapropriate choice of image, increased sexualisation of children is a problem. Innocent it may well be, but it is too close to Lolita images, or Jodie Fosters image in Taxi Driver. Whether some nonces like their girls as little girls, or as little ladies is imaterial, the choice of image is crass and not thought through. I know several people who thought it was plain wrong, and in the context of the parents being behind the release felt that it was a case of 'say what you like you can't touch us'.

Far removed from the face painting at fairs and childrens parties, imagine picking up a five year old girl from her friends birthday party painted like a badger, and that is pretty far removed from picking her up painted like Jordan !