General Chat

........................................................................................

Baby's bottom censored by store

A spokesman for Asda said they "don't do nudity" at any age
A mother who wanted to give a birthday cake to her son featuring a photo of him as a baby was forced to have it censored because it showed his bottom.

Gail Jordan, 41, had gone to Asda in Liscard, Wirral, on 13 June with the photo of her 21-year-old son David taken when he was five months old.

Staff at the supermarket refused to scan the picture onto a cake as it featured nudity.

They eventually printed the image onto the icing with a star over the bottom.

Mrs Jordan, of Rock Ferry, said: "I took the photo of my son to the store in Liscard and they said we can't do that - it's nudity.

"It was a photo of my son at five-months-old. I could not believe it.

'Not pornographic'

"Eventually another member of staff cut a star out and put it on his bottom on the cake.

"I just wanted a picture on his cake. Staff said it was deemed as pornographic.

"I don't normally shop there, but it would not stop me going back."

She added that her son was embarassed by the debacle but liked his cake.

A spokesman for Asda said: "We did not say it was pornographic. It is policy across the board that we don't do nudity of any sort at any age. It is nothing new.

"They (the staff) made a couple of suggestions - enlarge it so you take the bottom out of it, make the border different and another suggestion was putting a star on the offending area."

its a sign of the sad times we live in

its so sad

a babys a joy naked or dressed

It seems you don,t get "Five Star Service" at Azda then, only "One Star" Very Downmarket.**M**.:o)>.

LOL at least they are " UP Front " about it!!

dont they watch ads for "Pampers"? then

its shocking isnt it omg

parents will be stoped having skin to skin at birth next

I don't think you'll find ads for Pampers showing bare bottoms these days.

Everyone is free to take and keep bare-bottomed pictures of their own babies.

Low-level staff in grocery stores are not in a position to be deciding whether someone's naked baby pictures are harmless family fun or something more sinister. Does anyone deny that pictures of naked children can indeed be taken in circumstances that are in fact serious abuse? And that circulating pictures of naked children can be abuse of those children?

A business has to protect itself from being unwittingly involved in that sort of activity. The smartest thing is a policy that makes sure it doesn't happen.

I think this store's policy is sound and I don't think anyone suffered as a reuslt of it.

We have adverts on TV showing naked babies ..............even one mum kissing her babies bottom.

Sorry...........but I think this is a ridiculous policy.

Thes picture wasn't being circulated for pornographic purposes, it was just going on a cake that the family would see.

I agree with Kitty,,it was a personal thing,,the mum wasnt wanting to have it published in the local paper. for gods sake .
Whover the person was at the store who said it was 'pornographic' must have a very wierd or small mind,,
I see nothing pornographic about a babies botty,,,,thy're meant to kissed and raspberried arent they?

Do Asda sell magazines with photos of semi-naked women on the covers????

"I see nothing pornographic about a babies botty,,,,thy're meant to kissed and raspberried arent they?"

Yes. IN PRIVATE. Do you want videos of you kissing your babies' bottoms circulating among child pornography rings?

I doubt that store staff saw anything pornographic either. Store policy prohibits reproducing pictures with NUDITY. The policy may refer to "pornography" as the category or some such thing. We do get so hung up on meaningless points here, don't we?

I'm sure this is all POLITICAL CORRECTNESS gone awry, am I right?

Not one business's efforts to protect itself against being unwittingly involved in illegal activity.

And to protect its junior staff from getting into hassles with obstreperous customers.

Junior staff can tell customers "it's the policy and I have to follow it", and not have to get tangled in lengthy arguments with customers about how *their* naked pictures aren't pornography.

If there's such demand for cakes with pictures of naked babies on them, maybe somebody should set up a shop specializing in them. Meanwhile, this store is doing what it thinks is wise in its own interests. Big whup.

I'm not a fuddy duddy but I agree with KatherynB. OK it was for a family joke and the mother did say her son was embarassed, but the staff at Asda had no proof that it wasn't going to be used (the cake) for anything other than a party in thet family's home. It was company policy to say no and that should have been the end of it. I do agree that there are some new rules and regulations about everything we used to consider "normal" that are extreme and hard to adjust to.

How would a private video end up being circulated amongst child pornography rings?

Of course we need to protect our children, but why should everyone now be treated as a potential paedophile?

I just feel the tiny minority are taking the innocence away from family life.

Kitty ... I dunno ... how did you read in my post that I suggested a private video would end up being circulated among child pornography rings?

The question is: is it okay to kiss baby's bottoms?

Well, I guess the answer has to be "sometimes". But let's talk about mummies and daddies doing it for no sinister reason.

So is it okay to take videos of mummies and daddies kissing their babies' bottoms? Sure it is.

Now, if somebody shows up at a photo store and wants copies made of a video showing somebody kissing a baby's bottom, what should the photo store do?

What if it is YOUR baby in the video, and one of its uncles, unbeknownst to you, is part of a child pornography ring, and wants to share the video?

The video itself is neither pornographic nor not-pornographic. It is the USE of the video that could be a problem.

So: you don't think your video of you kissing your baby's bottom is pornographic. Neither do I.

But if it showed up on a child porn website, YOU WOULD think it was pornographic. Because that would be what it was being USED for.

Low-level clerks in grocery stores do not know what naked baby photograph cakes are going to be used for. And they should not have to make that kind of decision.

Yes, it sounds foolish *in this case*. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. What about a picture of the *front* of a naked baby?

The store simply drew the line at the very bottom. None. Period. If I were a store, so would I.

there is a picture of a topless man

holding a naked baby in his arm

i think this pictures beautiful

i think its called pride and joy

both Pampers and Johnsons products use babies with bare bottoms to advertise their products - I have no problem with that!!

Some photo developing shops will not give you a print back if its shows nudilty child or adult,,Ive had this happen ,B***ts gave the negative back but said the photo wouldnt be developed,!

If Asda has a policy then little can be done regardless of how we feel,and have to respect it.


While I dont have a problem with the TV ads,I wouldnt allow for my own nude baby.babies to be filmed for a tele ad,as I think its wrong you are taking all rights away from an innocent child,who could it speak may not wish it,.

But I'm not so withdrawn that of course its all seen as innocence at its best,

Wind your neck in Kathryn,,,got your sarcastic head on tonight have ya??

Kay, I completely agree with you about children's privacy and I think it's important.

Bare bottoms in family photo albums are one thing. Bare bottoms on television are another thing altogether.

Claire, if only I knew who you were and what you might be talking about.

I'll see whether I can think of an order to bark at you, just so you don't think I'm unwilling to return favours.

It is sad that these attitudes are seen to err on the side of caution,but due to the modern world of techno and things being brought to light so much more that everything innocent carries a dreaded warning that it could be used for other means,

Bare babies are a wondeful sight to the innocent,!