- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
I only recall seeing the bathtub photo in question on the Other Forum once, and don't recall it actually showing either nudity or "censored" nudity - though that may have been because whomever posted it there edited it. I may be misremembering, but it appeared that the girl had her elbows propped along the side of the tub, and only her arms and face were visible.
And, frankly, whether or not he'd actually published a nude of an underage [six-year-old?] child was irrelevant; if nothing else the photo illustrated that he was in the room with a naked child in a bath who is not his own.
One could make the case that taking a photograph of your own child naked in a bath [without actually showing their body] and posting it publicly for the entire world to see illustrates extremely poor judgment - but doesn't, in and of itself, make a person a "pedophile"; just the fact that he was in the proximity of and took a picture of a child who isn't his relative under such circumstances shows a lot more than bad judgment.
I can't say what publishing it makes him - but it's nothing good.
And, like the typical LOLcow, he's entirely deaf to that, preferring to try and argue that "it was only one image out of thousands" and that he had the parents' permission to both be in close proximity to their naked daughter as she bathed and photograph her.
What sort of parent allows an unrelated adult acquaintance to be alone with their children while they bathe and take pictures of them - even if the one that was published didn't actually show the child's body?!?!?
Whatever else "Uncle" Paul is, he's very creepy & very stupid - as are the people who allowed him to have the opportunity to take that photograph and publish it online.
