Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

Perverts in the shrubbery

Paul Walter is a longtime Webdiarist, self-described as middle-aged, who completed a Bachelor of Arts degree a couple of years ago as a mature age student. He has been masquerading here for the last two days as “Paul Walker” because of some email and password problems, which have now been resolved. However, his style was inimitable, so we knew who he was … Anyway, earlier today Paul made some comments about the brouhaha over Bill Henson’s allegedly pornographic photographs. I invited him to contribute a thread starter, and to my amazed delight he responded very promptly thus:

Don't know about a "small piece", but here are a few thoughts issuing forth at random concerning the time travellers’ return to the dark ages, also inspired by a visit to the Friends of SBS website an hour ago.

So, here it is. I think it's your debut piece for Webdiary, Paul - but whether or not it is, thank you. 

Perverts in the shrubbery
by Paul Walter

We shall dedicate the following to the now-sleeping Roland Barthes of "Mythologies" fame, as his famous tract continues its fifty-ish-ith anniversary.

At SBS, the writer discovered more concerning the perplexing stubborn ongoing refusal of the government to abide by election promises and remove deliberately intrusive advertising from SBS (has any one else been taken aback by the absolute lack of comment concerning ABC and SBS financing and independence over the last few months ... or the severity and rapidity of the decline of Fairfax and Murdoch?). So the theory that Rudd has spoken out of induced ignorance and resulting priggishness is strengthened, although the alternative theory relating to the damping down of a new front just opened by Devine in the Culture Wars on behalf of political allies encircled Stalingrad style still has much appeal. Now, I will add following thoughts.

The ALP is happy to inherit a dumbed down media surviving on prurience as factuality and where real issues are excluded, same as it is happy to inherit Howard's ASIO and weakened corporate law or IR provisions, for example.

For instance, the nerve shattering silence, except in terms of neo liberal boosterism concerning what the privatisation of NSW electricity is really about (Carr, "Vanuatu" Keating consultancies only mentioned in passing, etc ) – just one example. Thank heaven for Ian MacDougall’s exploration of this elsewhere. Richard Tonkin’s posts also constitute a long-term example posts of the forgotten art of broad sheet journalism, dealing with hard issues of equity, power and reality-shaping, ignored like the plague by mainstream press and media controlled by the likes of Ron Walker and Shaun Brown.

One sees Fairfax online following Murdoch subterranean of the gutter, now expending much space to urgent problems like the colour scheme of Myf Warhurst's knickers or the rampaging behaviours of female state school teachers vis à vis their male students.

In this sort of fevered environment, where "morals" are defined in terms of sexual behaviour exclusively, rather than through, say, financial corruption or moral sanctimoniousness, the Mirandas become rails runners for opinion dominance. And faux outrage over dubious artworks is just another obvious mode for distraction from real world issues.


I hear someone claiming that this writer is thus downgrading pedophilia as an issue?

No, just the opposite.

Of course it is not a minor issue. Therefore, it should not be cynically exploited as a culture wars stalking horse for other hidden agendas of political control through its (ab)use in the manipulating of the emotions and the offending the sensibilities of those with genuine concerns or who have been the real victims of abuse.

Look, this antic has provoked some intelligent comment in the op ed pages of the Age and SMH in response; for more involved investigation a visit is commended.

Back here, the Mirandas will have problems of contradiction as to their targets in what otherwise could have been a righteous war against commodification/reification of youth, as well as the separate problem of child sexual exploitation. But Dahvine painstakingly avoided mention of the lucrative field of endeavour in prurience worked intensely and daily throughout the media and press that also employs her, with her focus on a typical isolated soft "out sider" rightist target; the abstracted/abstract artist intellectual who is offside to "our" society by being more interested in examining its values than unthinkingly upholding them. Such an individual likely has intellectual concerns against prurience and such an attack is therefore likely libellous as well as misleading.

The one exception was Devine's helpful attack on Dolly magazine for its unconditional promoting of anal intercourse as a desired (de rigueur, if you like) behaviour option for thirteen year old girls, regardless of the health and pain/discomfort factors for participating fashionistas.

But even here, we ask are we examining an unexamined system and its underlying imperatives, or indulging in de facto legitimisation of that system by creating an impression that Dolly is just an isolated atypical example of component failure rather than the system exemplar?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Moderate and reasonable

Kath, your contribution was moderate and reasonable in tone, and only a fool would not grasp your desire for caution and the need for it when lives could be at stake.

Heaven forbid you should think people like me desirous for yet more open slather, when intemperate personal and avaricious corporate influences would just love more exploitation opportunities for their own reasons. "Tabloid" corporate influences wouldn't hesitate to make capital out of a free-er society. Miranda Devine's example involving "Dolly" magazine advocating anal sex as commended behaviour for their near-child readership makes quite clear the first: at the individual level those t old to choose for themselves, paedophile child victims, are unwittingly roped into someone else's acted-out fantasy especially and cruelty and coercion are involved.

But I must take issue with one very small, but likely significant line that becomes the crux of your whole post:

"These photographs were posed for, in such a way as to arouse sexual desire".

This is an enormous, even arguably defamatory judgement to make in the absence of real evidence. Had you suggested that the photos might have been employed to arouse appetites, I would have had no trouble in agreeing the possibility, since I'm not privy to the secrets of Henson's mind either.

I wish I had your telepathic capacities.

No chance other motive(s) could have been involved?

If he did consciously pose the photos to create desire, was that in others, or himself?

Can we prove a personal peccadillo, or something he might have been even unconscious of, with him guessing that the photos might be useful in a commercial sense, for reasons commercial, artistic or prurient, or even for making people think or meditate (altruistic), given the design of the photos.

But let's suppose you are right and the photos were posed for titillation, as happens with photographers and women and girls and boys almost as young as the subject every second of the day right across commercial mass media, for mass consumption, arguably regardless of any consequences flowing there from. That's let alone the victims of underworld pornography, which perverts are usually more interested in.

By the criteria of mass media, let alone organized crime, little harm is done, unless or until these desires are acted upon! (And even then there is no guarantee they'd give a bugger!) So why is this lone individual single out?

In the sad end, what even if "sexual desire" was deliberately incited? Don't we have, in the absence of anything else, another victimless crime (not unlike the stupid cases recently where adult women have been charged with the absurd crime of "penetration" (???) for involvements with sexually mature young men under an arbitrary age of consent, unrelated to realities)?

I digress. ..

I can't see Henson's primary objective as being the wilful incitement of uncontrolled lust to create certain harm or violence against others. If Henson was that good even I'd be turned on, despite my declining middle age libido. And I can assure folk, I'm not.

Any blokes turned on by photos, who have seen them?

I've been thinking Paul...(Dangerous, I know )

 Hmm. I have been thinking about  what you wrote, Paul.  And, I take your point.

 "These photographs were posed for in such a way as to arouse sexual desire"

I actually had not  considered whether this was a subconscious or conscious act on the part of the artist, or even the subjects.This was not on my mind at the time. (I had murder on my mind.) Obviously my "telepathic capacities", as you so succintly put it Paul, are severely wanting!

I felt passionately at the time of writing that sentence (still do) that the poses were sexual. A sultry look, a strategically placed hand, a naked vulva, budding breasts on a 12 year old girl on the cusp of  womanhood. Certainly sexually provocative, I think.

Whether it was deliberate or not does not detract from the harm that could be caused by these pictures. Any future effects on the 12 year old girl who posed for them are also concerning.

No offence intended

Kath, no offence intended, it’s a difficult subject particularly for people who have been abused while still young, or abhor cruelty.

So the civil liberties/purging of hang-ups is indeed at a touchy juncture to concerns over exploitation and even cruelty when some (pedophiles) could take the relaxing and enlightening of social mores as carte blanche for unfair activity involving the defenceless

...BTW, what do folk of that peculiar case in reported in Melbourne, concerning a twelve year old who has been sanctioned by a court decision as to her desire for a sex change operation, against the wishes of her parent(s)?

One thing to decide to let someone take mere photos of you, but deciding unilaterally on something as physically drastic as a sex change operation seems a big decision for a kid so young to be allowed to make.

And what does it say for the role of parents as traditional guardians when the state can intervene (guilty til 'proven innocent?) ... also in relation to recent fads involving botox, rubberised boobs and plastic surgery involving "Dolly-ised" teenage "Valley" girls in America?

Seems to be a funny culture, to me, that encourages such morbid self-preoccupation, anxiety, precociousness, and preciousness in its young.

I am disappointed by Kevin Rudd

Kevin Rudd is a Christian. While he is miles better than that other Christian, John Winston Howard, the previous holder of his job, it looks as if we are right to worry that he may be a christianist. He is certainly the type of Christian bigot who will shoot his mouth off about the picture without having the decency to look at it first.

Fiona: In fairness to Kevin Rudd, Carlyle, he did see the photographs (or some of them) before proclaiming them "revolting".

A long time coming

The raid on the Bill Henson exhibition – which I was on my way to but was phoned beforehand and told not to bother – is an example really of how long too many people have had their heads in the sand for so long.

"Pedo" panic and terrorism are two examples that have been used religiously by authorities to scare the general public into a type of control. That the arts community is up in arms over the latest controversy at the Oxley gallery is quite right – but where were these people when dozens of men have been charged and convicted, some jailed, some committed suicide but most have had their lives completely ruined over possession of similar material? You don't think so?

No, because basically people believe every police press release that is reprinted by the gutter tabloids that it's always the "worst of the worst" material or that one sensational case (a police prosecutor) is typical of all the rest.

Be under no illusion – the police intend to prosecute this to the fullest and every expert or Law Society's claim that it will fail will fall on deaf ears. They cannot afford not to prosecute. The legal ramifications over this case are going to be fascinating.

British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell has recently shown that evidence used to convict numerous men in the UK and USA was false and knowingly spread by the FBI and picked up by our AFP to terrify those arrested into pleading guilty. One such was the famous UK rock star, so traumatised by a raid on his home of 50 police plus a dozen TV crews that he pleaded instantly at the station to a lesser charge to get out of the whole business.

And that's what's it's all about – creating enemies of the state just like the Nazis did in the early 1930's.

One should take a look at Sicko, Michael Moore’s film about the sick state of health care in the USA, not because we already know that, but for the one illuminating interview with the great British MP Tony Benn who says:

Governments cannot govern unless people are in a state of permanent fear.

The Mirandas of the world do the business of a Nazi state.

Rockspiders should be stamped upon no matter how they hide

"The Mirandas of the world do the business of a NAZI state? "

Wow, so the Nazis protected the vulnerable children from the exploitation of those who wish to exhibit naked posed 12 year old girls, exciting our pederasts who call them "young adults" and stand staring for ages "enjoying their skin tones" all under the guise of art. THAT is revisionism.

Those who take and exhibit naked photos of 12 year old girls and exhibit them do the business of the paedophile porn industry.

Those who allow it are not protecting the vulnerable in our society. 

Those who cannot see our first duty is to do what we can in our own backyard are blinkered.

Those who mix adult sexual behaviour with child sex exploitation are being disingenuous.

The full weight of the law should be thrown at this degenerate photographer and all who were involved including the guardians of this child I think it will be interesting where he "sourced" his victim and how much he paid for her services.

Rock spiders cannot be allowed to hide under the banner of art.


The recognition factor?

"Scruffy, smelly and bearded raincoat wearers...".  Good heavens.  I had no idea that paedophiles were so easily recognised.

But, even back in the 50s, we knew that they were...well, ...not of our class, did we not?  

Funny that,  because it allowed us to tolerate for so long the suave, the distinguished, the powerful, the patrons, the pillars of society who preyed on children.

For xxx xxx sake:  What place do such snobbish patronising stereotypes have to do in a discussion such as this?

Let us not go down Miranda's bigoted road.

 A final comment for now.

A final comment for now. Would it have been beyond the understanding of those persecuting Henson, as to comprehension of his likely real intentions?

No, a single digit moron could have guessed that Henson is an artist in conversation with his audience concerning an aspect of the human condition. Let alone people as bright as Rudd and Devine. The show was held at an intimate gallery where scruffy smelly and bearded raincoat-wearers searching for little girls, whilst armed to the gunwales with sweeties, would have been in short supply indeed.

Is wilful perversion of a known truth not a real definition of "pornography" itself?

What then is Devine, who transgresses her own professed Christianity to the point of defying the commandment that forbids "bearing false witness" against her neighbour, but a species of pornographer herself?

Yesterday, she employed another trick taught her by her old man, the disguising of a slanderous attack on a target "real" only in Miranda’s mad mind, obscured from the readership by the promise of an article dealing purportedly with something totally unrelated.

To mask a sly attack on environmentalists (this time), we were offered in the lead in a supposed new insight into the real world horror that is post earthquake China.

We already know Devine has a grudge against greenies and is also a shameless self-promoter. So we would disdain the prostituting of the suffering in China as an envelope for another bigoted attack on environmentalists, of all people; an ill-considered attack previously proffered, to be avoided by sensible people undesirous of having their time wasted by rabid diatribes against imaginary bogeys.

But Devine in effect rapes her readership as punishment for their rebellion and avoidance, knowing they would eschew more of her nonsense concerning environment, therefore ambushing the readership with more of that halfway through something offered as relevant, new, and different from, the old themes justifiably rejected.

As for Rudd, how does he pass himself off as the final authority on what's decent or good art? This the sort of hubris people recall when thinking of Howard.

Be careful what you wish for

... you just might get it.

First, thank you (again) Paul Walter for this piece. It is an interesting topic, and ties into a couple of things that have been happening around the world over the past months. More of that anon.

 Second, my take on this incident - apart from being horrified about the overtones of the prurient 1950s and early 1960s, which I well remember - I have no quarrel at all with those who oppose the sexualisation of prepubescent, pubescent, adolescent, and adult females and males for commercial purposes, but art is something else entirely. After all, a pedophile (or anyone else, for that matter) can get their jollies any time at the local beach or swimming pool, or watching a game of football (aahhh, Warwick Capper ....).

Perhaps Hetty Johnson should be offered a sledgehammer to remove all those naughty bits on all those statues on public display around Australia, and a can of spray paint to obliterate the equivalent on those wicked paintings flauntingly displayed in public galleries.

Or perhaps we could all take a cold shower and think about some of the potential outcomes of this slippery path. Burkhas, anyone? I have one tucked away in a drawer if anyone wants to borrow it ...

And still, pedophiles will go about their evil work undeterred by this bizarre circus.

Thought police and religious fanatics

Fiona, I think you are right when you see that the potential outcome of this censorship is the slippery path to religious fanaticism and the enforcement of religious law.

Nudity is the natural state. It is cultural or religious belief that is offended by nudity. In some societies it is natural and innocent to go out in public naked.

It is the media beat up of pedophilia that makes us all fear for our children and try to protect them. The same way crime statistics make us afraid to walk in the dark. Crime rates are down but we still think crime is worse than it was when we were kids. We try to wrap our kids in bubble wrap. It is fear that motivates us and often it is the media that creates that fear, in turn forcing governments to act. We all too often give up our freedom because of fear.

Religion is one way of responding to fear and religion often asks that we give up our freedom. The first thing missionaries did when meeting cultures that were happily naked was to make them dress. One of the fears that I have for the Rudd Prime Ministership is that he will use his religious convictions to rein in some of our freedoms.

We are a secular society and should accept all cultures. We should not have thought police or laws that try to enforce one culture over another. If no physical harm is done to anyone or anything then it is ok. The thing we should fear most is our loss of freedom.

Diary of a single father and daughter

Paul, thanks for kind words, now down to business.

Aged seven, going on my first school camp in Gippsland, I took off my clothes at showertime and walked down to the bathroom, just as we did at home every day. Gales of ununderstood laughter, and a kindly teacher taking me back to the dorm and explaining the social protocols. My family were far from a bunch of nudists, but we weren't hung up about that sort of stuff. As my younger sisters grew older, though, things became more modest.

Today I am a half-time parent (not the best phraseology but you know what I mean), the other occupier of the house my nine year old daughter. Tonight we have been watching the next Doctor Who Christmas Special (absolutely riddled with Cheney and Twin Towers/ Halliburton conspiracy stuff, by the way; however, all this not in the sphere of consciousness of a nine year old) over hot dogs, pancakes and Fanta in cocktail glasses. As I write she is asleep in my double bed.

Recently we have had to deal with a situation in which a schoolfriend on a sleepover told her about being sexually interfered with by her father. I have a smattering of knowledge on mandatory reporting laws, and took my daughter to our next-door-neighbour social worker to repeat what she had told me. The necessary investigations were carried out. It was around this time that the mother of the schoolfriend arrived on our doorstep at eight in the morning to ask my daughter to go to the police with what she had been told. The end result of this situation is that the mother is court-ordered never to see her daughter, and both parents have moved to locations unknown to the other. I feel so sad for this little girl.

Having said that, back to my personal situation. My daughter's mother and I thankfully get on very well, and we are both deeply committed to providing a consistent upbringing. A TV ban, for instance, for an offence committed in one house is carried over to the next. Also, she is allowed, on non-school nights, to sleep in the bed of her parent if she wants to. I'm about to put a stop to it though. Even though things are fantastic at the moment, I feel I have to protect us from even the most remote possibility of being in anything like the situation of the family I describe above.

I know a young adult who spent her latter teenage years working in the Melbourne porn industry. She's well out of it now, and her mother will never know.

Having said all this, let's get to the Henson situation. I've had a look at a few of the pictures, and thematically related other works that he's done. I have read the reactions on the tabloid sites and a few arts blogs, and yes I've looked at a few porn sites Now, the stuff on the porn sites is revolting, much of it catering to the fantasy of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse. I hope not to meet a parent who wouldn't feel revolted at the sight of this stuff. It is, however, easily accessible to anyone who chooses to look for it Henson's pieces are indeed a bit disturbing, but I think that is part of the intent of the artist. If you look at the pieces and analyse your reactions you'll start thinking and questioning. That the reaction of our society has been to impound and incriminate has inspired such discussions across the country. I think this a very healthy happenstance. A culture that can't examine its state of health is most likely to be seriously unwell.

About the only shows that are banned in my house are the weekend morning commercial TV pop clips. No doubt I'm the modern equivalent to the people who would only allow broadcasts in Australia of Elvis the Pelvis that were shot from the waist up, but I do not want my girlchild to sing lyrics of an overtly sexual nature, and perform "dance movements" that are notably coital. Given that the eight to fifteen female demographic are the main purchasers of so much pop music product, I think this is a ghastly way of getting money off kids.

I also have problems with a Disney site called the Penguin Club that requests the parent opening the account on behalf of the child to disable their comp's cookie blocker. Foolishly I did so, and even with constant supervision and an examination of every cookie trying to get in (try doing this sometime, it's an eye-opener) within a day we were getting emails selling breast-enlarger cups. I'm not saying this is Disney's fault, but it's my opinion that they've created an electronic environment in which such inappropriate events are much more highly likely to occur.

Combine the kiddie-porn and the demographic-tailored merchandising and as far as I'm concerned that's when you get a sensation of moral depravity in our society.

There had to be a backlash to some of the more disgusting crimes of late. That little girl in the WA supermarket shocked everybody into awareness of the potential of lurking pedophiles, as has the spate of men with phone/cameras taking pictures of kids at public swimming places. I guess, that the Beaumont disappearance over here in murderous Adelaide started that particular ball rolling in this country.

What we've ended up with is a rarity of kids walking home and single males at beaches under the intense scrutiny of many eyes. I don't go the beach alone anymore. I hate that I need to feel this way. I hate that ways of life that I grew up with are not appropriate in my house. And I hate that so much money is made by promoting sexually overt products to juveniles and pedophiles.

So is Henson's work art or porn?

It has pornographic elements, yes, but to me it makes a strong statement of a loss of innocence shared by all of us. If this is what was intended then the man is truly a gifted artist. The thought-police approach of the increasingly draconian NSW authorities has amplified the effect a hundredfold.

If Australian authorities want to do something useful they should be working towards outlawing profiting from concepts of illegal forms of sexuality. That's thought-policing too, I know, but if we want to keep our kids safe and innocent then such a civil liberty is one, especially considering those that we've lost of late, that will not be missed.

Intent and content

John Pratt’s comments, well reinforced by F Kendall, are valuable, because they raise the issues of intent and content.

The Henson photos are more likely a musing on the human condition, subjectivity etc, aimed at philosophically inclined arts humanities folk – it’s a completely different sort of language and discourse if you like, involving artist and audience antithetical to something the prime purpose of profiteering carrion, which is sexual arousal, incitement to rape and a profiting through possibly irresponsible and uncontrollable incited arousal, by same.

Nor are the photos, through their staging and presentation, likely to be an attempt to commodify or reify teenagers themselves, as consumers. This not a Britney Spears style judas goat role model that seeks identification from its targets to the extent of adopting self-harmful behaviours as a price of unconscious member ship in a particular market; that of manufacturing of a market through the misuse of its human material. This would be the diametrically opposite intent of Henson, unless I misunderstand Henson completely.

Is nudity obscene?

If one of the job descriptions of a democratic government is to avoid telling people how to live their lives, how do we explain this police raid?

New South Wales Police yesterday raided a art gallery in Sydney's east and removed a number of Henson's nude photographs of a girl under the age of 16.

Centre executive director Robyn Ayres says a court will now have to define the community standard of indecency.

"Bill Henson has for years and years been photographing children and women naked and and it's never been considered an issue of indecency," she said.

"So have community standards changed that much that it is no longer acceptable to see children or young people photographed naked?"

Has nudity become a crime?

The definintion of pornography: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Is the human body now obscene?

Three definintions of obscene:

1. offensive to morality or decency.

2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire.

3. abominable, disgusting or repulsive.

If anyone has a problem with child or adult nudity they have a problem, not the nude child or the nude adult.

Would we now put a fig leave over Michelangelo's David?

Does the state have the right to determine artistic merit?

I wonder where we are heading as a society when we feel guilt when we look at a child's body. I have a love of photography but now I feel guilty if I take a photo of a child, or even if I pause for a while when walking past a children's playground.

The human body is beautiful and has been the subject of art for thousands of years. Is aboriginal art pornographic? It often depicts human genitalia.

Is our moral fortitude so weak that we need a police force to decide what is art and what is not?

Fiona: Note that this comment was published earlier today on the Bits in the Middle thread, but because it inspired the commissioning of the present thread I have republished it here.


John Pratt, your post covers many different points. I find your questions most interesting to discuss, but here does not seem to be the place...so, just a ...

"Has nudity become a crime?"

Did you see of the (Israeli?) girl in NZ, last week, who, irritated by the wolf whistling by local men as she was using an ATM, calmly took off all her clothes, completed her transaction, put her clothes back on again and was taken off to the police station? I think that public nudity, except by babes under say 5 years, has been a crime all my life. You could try walking down the street nude, and I think that you would find it to be a crime, as it was 20, 40, 60, 100 and more years ago.

I must confess that, living in a clothed society, I find looking at naked people to be very interesting and sometimes quite erotic. And, their photos as well. Are you suggesting that I would be a healthier person if my hormones did not react in this way?

Although, I do take the nudists’ point, that putting little flags of cloth over "interesting bits" is more erotic.

But, David: No. His beauty and the artistic vision and skill transcend his nudity. The nudity is not the point. Is that the difference?

It is a far cry, to my mind, from, say, the distinguished international artist...who has created a machine that digests food and produces turds which are highly sought after by rich international collectors. An apt representation of the spirit of the western world, one might think. It is hard to think of this and David in the same category. I don't.

You may find these letters from the Sydney Morning Herald, some supporting and some dissing your view, interesting.

And no: I haven't seen the Henson images, so do not have a personal opinion.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 12 hours ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 13 hours ago