Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think the parish newsletter is not appropriate

755 replies

NikoBellic · 28/03/2015 21:51

I'm not talking about the notices regarding the horticultural society, nor am I referring to the village "300 Club", or Gwen's amazing contribution to the village hall this month...

...I realise that unless you live in a rural area, much like fibre broadband, you won't get this...

Each month the parish council post a newsletter through my front door. A quaint little wedge of folded paper with some useful information on local gas safe engineers and who is raising what for which charity, interspersed with reminders to pick up dog poo. The outer cover is usually a lot quality 1995 clip art file along religious lines, printed onto coloured paper of some sort. This month, for the start of spring and the Easter period, its a sort of yellow. Its the cover that I'm not completely comfortable with...

We always hear, particularly from the type of person who lives in a village and reads the parish newsletter, that children should not be subjected to images of violence, sex, and general "bad stuff"...

SO WHY IS OK TO POST A PICTURE OF A BLEEDING MAN BEING CRUCIFIED THROUGH MY LETTERBOX!? (Even if it is in 1995 clip art form).

If I were to post an image of a man being hung through someone's front door I'd have to face, at the very least, a police caution. Seems like double standards from where I'm sat.

In an area where Nigel Farage gets a pat on the back (a man who is offended by seeing a breastfeeding mother in a pub...) why does religion get special dispensation?

Is it OK because its, you know, Jesus?

Am I being unreasonable?

OP posts:
Hakluyt · 30/03/2015 10:04

Springtulip-you do know you are making things up, don't you?

Housemum · 30/03/2015 10:06

Not sure if it has already been mentioned, but what about newspapers? Sometimes the front pages can be distressing - starving children, survivors of a bomb, crashed planes. Should we censor all images that could cause distress? No, obviously not. In a society which (mostly) allows freedom of speech, you have to accept that not everything that is printed and distributed may necessarily be what you'd like to see.

Crucifixion was a brutal form of torture, but it is recognised as what Easter is about. Should I take my (albeit more sanitised version), "This is Holy Week" poster out of my window for fear of offending my postman or any dog-walkers? Sometimes with all the bunnies/chicks etc we forget what Easter started with, and it is a distressing image of someone dying for us (if you are Christian), or a bloke in history who was killed that way that some people like to remember (if you are not).

Springtulip · 30/03/2015 10:11

Binkybix The ops post was objecting to an image of Christs crucifixion. How have I missed the point. Read my post above.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 10:12

There are rules about what can be shown in the media, at what time and what requires a warning.

The fair comparison wouldn't be pictures of children starving, it would be would there be outrage at another group posting a picture of picture of someone being executed through someone elses letterbox.

I do understand the cultural argument someone was making earlier, and think that's actually why I probably wouldn't have thought anything of it. But there's nothing wrong with questioning the norm is there?

I think you being made to take your poster down would be OTT but I would question in my own mind why you feel the need to put it up if I walked past it.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 10:15

Yes I read your post.

She wasn't upset by it. She was asking why that picture was ok whereas a picture of an execution sent by another group wouldn't be, even of the latter group also believed that that picture was true/was important.

If in theory you would be fine to recieve a picture of a different execution posted through your letterbox because a different group fought it was important, then that's a consistent position. Maybe you would be?

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 10:18

Thought not fought. I'm not doing a great job of backing away, am I?

Springtulip · 30/03/2015 10:31

The rules about what can be shown in the media certainly don't protect children from what goes on. Front pages of newspaper show some terrible sights, of things that are happening right now. If a child is unlucky enough to live in places like Syria or Iraq they might have witnessed a beheading, stoning, burning in a cage or other equally horrific sight. Thank goodness they don't have to witness all that.
History books in schools depict some awful sights, they don't usually upset a child too much because they know it was something that happened in the past. It's current events that upset kids, we've got to give them credit for knowing the difference. They don't get disturbed by images of something that happened hundreds of years ago. You can't sanitise the whole environment in case a child sees something upsetting. Children are about to celebrate Easter, it won't do them any harm to see what Easter is all about. They might decide in the future that they don't believe any of it, but that's for them to decide. To deny them that right by not telling them is wrong.

Hoplikeabunny · 30/03/2015 10:38

You've missed the point, again. It's about the double standard. Answer this- if I put a picture of a graphic picture of a pig with its throat being slit through your door, on the basis that it's okay because i'm a farmer (i'm not, but hypothetically speaking!), would you be okay with that?

Springtulip · 30/03/2015 10:57

No it's you missing the point. if you put a picture of a pig with its throat being slit you'd perhaps be doing it purely to antagonise or shock, depicting the Crucifixion isn't to antagonise, it's to remind us.Just as pictures perhaps of skeletal Jews in the death camps aren't shown to children to antagonise. It's how they learn, pictures paint a thousand words. Many things might traumatise children but I'd say an image of Christ on the cross isn't a major one. It's you who are massively missing the point.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 11:00

They don't get disturbed by images of something that happened hundreds of years ago

Did you read the poster above who was very disturbed by it? Or are you choosing to ignore that because it doesn't fit in with what you want to think?

But, again, you're missing the point.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 11:04

It's for YOU to remember - not other people who don't believe in it. You don't seem able to comprehend that.

I think it's important to remember lots of historical things (I'm not saying the crucifixion of Jesus was historical) which were brutal. Would you be happy for someone with this belief to post a picture of a different historically important execution through your door?

fredfredgeorgejnr · 30/03/2015 11:10

The invented claim that other images of execution are not shown it just garbage, I've seen them in newspapers, amnesty international advertising, all sorts of art gallery and museum advertising material - stylised use of execution images and other "gore" are common.

Clip art of a crucifixion is not upsetting, and there's no double standard, other groups which want to do similar have no problem doing so.

There is no double standard, any group can, and does do it.

Springtulip · 30/03/2015 11:12

Look if your going to base your evidence on the experiences of one or two people it's meaningless. My daughter used to get very upset indeed when she saw pictures of the Jews, should she not have been shown them and taught about them. Ridiculous to point it out. Again it's you who are missing the point. Should we or should we not have history books depicting horrible scenes just in case it upsets children.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 11:17

I have never had a picture of any other sort of execution posted through my door.

You said that children would not get upset by that imagery, I have an example where they had been.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 11:18

Also I don't think the principle point by here is that it will upset children. It's the double standard.

Hoplikeabunny · 30/03/2015 11:20

I'm missing the point?! Okay then!

Actually, to me the image IS antagonistic and completely unnecessary, in the same way that a picture of a pig with its throat slit would be. You argue that it is there to remind us about whatever it is that apparently Jesus did for us, because you are a Christian and that is what you think. Well what if I was a farmer and I did send you a picture of a pig with its throat slit, and my argument for that was basically the same as yours- that I sent it to remind you that amimals die for food every day, and to basically get a grip because there are a lot worse images out there? Why is that apparently deliberately antagonistic, but a picture of a dying man who is actually completely irrelevant to me, isn't?! Can you honestly not see the double standard there?

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 11:23

The scary thing is that I genuinely don't think they can.

QueenBean · 30/03/2015 11:24

limitedperiodonly those links are exactly the same - it doesn't work on a mobile device to link to the specific image in the same way it does on a desktop

I agree with the OP. Completely unnecessary to send around shocking images like that. Fine for you to believe what you want to, but don't ram it home to others without choice.

jesus died on the cross for us

No he didn't.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 11:26

Sorry, one more thing then I'll wait for you to answer my question.

Again you stated as fact that children do not get frightened by images of the crusifixtion. I provided evidence that this statement is incorrect, so not ridiculous for me to bring it up even if it's not common.

Springtulip · 30/03/2015 11:29

Look forget about pig with throats being cut. Think about history books in our schools. Most children don't get too upset about images of awful chapters in our history. They might get a bit upset but they deal with it because it's in the past and they soon learn that awful things did happen in the past. Children also go to churches where there are huge crosses with Christ nailed to it, I've never known a child yet to run out traumatised. It's ridiculous to think therefore that a parish news letter with a picture of Christ on the cross will do any child any upset. Apart from anything else you would be doing a child a disservice if you painted the past in a rose tinted hue.

Springtulip · 30/03/2015 11:34

So you pointed out that one poster said she used to be traumatised by images of the crucifixion. I pointed out that my daughter used to be by the plight of the Jews. Because of my daughter should our history book be rewritten? It's the same analogy.

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 11:35

No, to forget the pig analogy would be to miss the point of the OP.

Why won't you answer my simple question?

Binkybix · 30/03/2015 11:35

No that's not what I said at all.

And I'll answer your question about history books when you answer mine.

QueenBean · 30/03/2015 11:36

But would you post a leaflet through the door with images of emaciated and dying Jews in a concentration camp? After all; it's a historically correct image so wouldn't upset anyone?

Springtulip · 30/03/2015 11:36

Queenbean
You're entitled to your opinions. Just because you state something in a factual way doesn't make it right.