Re: Mark Warner Resort

by Rogue-a-Tory 23.12.14 9:23

PeterMac wrote:Off topic, but just for the record in case people have forgotten, or are new to the site
The one on the left is by Graham Ovenden, who went to prison for making indecent images.
Spot the difference.

Wow, that's an eye opener PeterM

by Joss 23.12.14 10:29

Daryl Dixon wrote:I can't see anything 'indecent' or strange about Madeleine's blue eyeshadow photo. It's just a little girl playing dress up with make up, beads and fancy dress. Get a grip people.

In lieu of the Gaspar statements i wouldn't be too sure about that.

by Joss 23.12.14 10:32

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Off topic, but just for the record in case people have forgotten, or are new to the site
The one on the left is by Graham Ovenden, who went to prison for making indecent images.
Spot the difference.
Wow, that's an eye opener PeterM

Taking a child's innocence is about as evil as it gets. How on earth can anyone be a paedophile artist, that's sick.

by **PeterMac** 23.12.14 11:52

And just to remind people
Ovenden was sentenced, it was appealed by the prosecution as too light, and he was sent to prison.
Lord McAlpine was named as the anonymous seller of a large collection of Ovenden's work.
The Wiki entry has been redacted, but we have the original from the Wayback machine.
reference if anyone really wants.

by noddy100 23.12.14 12:35

The portugal resident article has been whooshed

by jeanmonroe 23.12.14 12:39

noddy100 wrote:The portugal resident article has been whooshed

Bummer!

Pity nobody 'saved' it!

Oh, hang on................... winkwink

by **PeterMac** 23.12.14 12:47

We have to be quick.
Luckily it is now in the public domain, including the reference to people "wanting to tell the truth at last" - if that was the problem. I am trying to find out what happened.

by Guest 23.12.14 15:40

[quote="PeterMac"]Off topic, but just for the record in case people have forgotten, or are new to the site
The one on the left is by Graham Ovenden, who went to prison for making indecent images.
Spot the difference.
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5hxpo3IQAAWglF.jpg[/img][/quote]

Spot the live one? Oh, wait...

by plebgate 23.12.14 15:43

I can't quite remember but didn't a police officer reportedly comment that they thought the photo was an inapproriate one to use?

by Khaleesi 23.12.14 17:41

PeterMac wrote:Off topic, but just for the record in case people have forgotten, or are new to the site
The one on the left is by Graham Ovenden, who went to prison for making indecent images.
Spot the difference.

Both girls have exactly the same facial expression, like someone directed them to look.. well, seductively. :puke: And I think it is the facial expression, so very improper to the girl so young makes people think Maddie looks older on this pic.

by Realist 23.12.14 20:20

Khaleesi wrote:

Both girls have exactly the same facial expression, like someone directed them to look..

But that's where the similarity ends, the one on the left could be anything in age between 13 and 18, whereas the one on the right is clearly a young child.

by Khaleesi 23.12.14 20:32

Realist wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:

Both girls have exactly the same facial expression, like someone directed them to look..
But that's where the similarity ends, the one on the left could be anything in age between 13 and 18, whereas the one on the right is clearly a young child.

And that's why this picture of Maddie is so very WRONG. As I wrote earlier someone had to direct her to pose like that, toddlers do not strike such poses on their own. someone also applied her the makeup. What the f... was going on in the McCann family? And what is wrong with Madeleine parents that they thought it was a good idea not only to publish such a picture, but even take it?

by Liz Eagles 23.12.14 20:41

Khaleesi wrote:
Realist wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:

Both girls have exactly the same facial expression, like someone directed them to look..
But that's where the similarity ends, the one on the left could be anything in age between 13 and 18, whereas the one on the right is clearly a young child.

And that's why this picture of Maddie is so very WRONG. As I wrote earlier someone had to direct her to pose like that, toddlers do not strike such poses on their own. someone also applied her the makeup. What the f... was going on in the McCann family? And what is wrong with Madeleine parents that they thought it was a good idea not only to publish such a picture, but even take it?

Weep for this little girl Khaleesi. You won't see that photograph on a McCann luggage tag/holiday pack/Lorraine Kelly sofa.

The photograph to my knowledge has never been produced in full. It's cropped.

by **PeterMac** 23.12.14 21:33

PeterMac wrote:We have to be quick.
Luckily it is now in the public domain, including the reference to people "wanting to tell the truth at last" - if that was the problem. I am trying to find out what happened.

I can now tell you that the article was "whooshed" by the author herself, because she believed there MIGHT, just, be one tiny inaccuracy, or point of contention in what she had said.
She is seeking further clarification, so as to ensure that what she submits is factually correct.

Mitchell, TM, and the rest of the MSM have a long way to go !

by ultimaThule 23.12.14 22:43

Other than this forum appearing in search results, there's nothing on the net about MW closing its operation in Luz/Portugal and, as this is hardly likely to have been a decision that was made overnight, I would have expected it to have been picked up by some financial/business page/journal or other.

At the time of writing, it appears the only way to book the Ocean Club as a holiday destination for 2015 is via http://luzoceanclub.com/

by Rogue-a-Tory 23.12.14 22:56

Realist wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:

Both girls have exactly the same facial expression, like someone directed them to look..
But that's where the similarity ends, the one on the left could be anything in age between 13 and 18, whereas the one on the right is clearly a young child.

Highly doubtful the the one on the left was even 13 let alone 18.

by Realist 23.12.14 23:15

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
Realist wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:

Both girls have exactly the same facial expression, like someone directed them to look..
But that's where the similarity ends, the one on the left could be anything in age between 13 and 18, whereas the one on the right is clearly a young child.
Highly doubtful the the one on the left was even 13 let alone 18.

---and that is precisely why I used the phraseology 'could be.' There's a subtle difference between stating how old a person actually is, as opposed to how old they look, or are made to look.

by universe 24.12.14 2:36

Chitty, Chitty bang, bang.... Finally S/ yard can now see the forest in spite of the trees & realise the part that Mark Warner played in this cover up & their reasons for doing so !!!.

by universe 24.12.14 15:44

Now that Mark Warner has fled from PDL Catriona, Charlotte & Amy etc, etc may feel liberated enought to now make statements to the police that will give their truth versions unlike their previous statements that were given under duress. OMO, OMO, OMO.

by columbostogeys 25.12.14 6:24

Khaleesi wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Off topic, but just for the record in case people have forgotten, or are new to the site
The one on the left is by Graham Ovenden, who went to prison for making indecent images.
Spot the difference.

Both girls have exactly the same facial expression, like someone directed them to look.. well, seductively. :puke: And I think it is the facial expression, so very improper to the girl so young makes people think Maddie looks older on this pic.

Actually that isnt the most provocative photo of Madeliene there is another one worse, where she is posing like an adult. I have seen the same pose in nude magazines....not saying there was any weird or inappropriate attention meant by the photo but it was very odd thing for a 3 year old to be asked to do......The girl on the left of the photo is about 10 i would say. I dont think there is anything wrong in little girls wearing makeup and dressing up, my kids did it, but they were never made to pose for camera shots, it was just fun stuff they did...usually using their tea sets, at the same time, nicking my jewellery and shoes lol......I never gave it a thought to take photos, it was just them in their little world having fun, and ruining my makeup lol.

The image i dont like is actually on this forum somewhere. She is laying on her back with her head extended looking bacwards in a very forced pose. I saw the original way back and you could see her better. If i saw any young girl of 3 posing like that i would be wary to be honest. I dont for one minute think she would have posed herself like that......I found it on google search although it has been snipped...its slightly down the page there are the 3 photos and its the last one.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mccannfiles.com%2Fid324.html&ei=AK-bVJs0i4FRq6qCmAs&bvm=bv.82001339,d.d24&psig=AFQjCNFIQ6WH_FXL7-sN3JRWkig1DLhPjw&ust=1419575417751614

by columbostogeys 25.12.14 6:40

PeterMac wrote:Off topic, but just for the record in case people have forgotten, or are new to the site
The one on the left is by Graham Ovenden, who went to prison for making indecent images.
Spot the difference.

would be interesting to know when the one by Ovenden was taken.....that child is about 10.

by nglfi 25.12.14 8:36

I'm trying to imagine if one of my friends on Facebook posted a picture of their daughter in that exact same position, how I would feel. I don't think I'd be too happy. I would feel uncomfortable and that it was weird.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 25.12.14 8:56

columbostogeys wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Off topic, but just for the record in case people have forgotten, or are new to the site
The one on the left is by Graham Ovenden, who went to prison for making indecent images.
Spot the difference.
would be interesting to know when the one by Ovenden was taken.....that child is about 10.

OMG, I'd never heard of Graham Ovenden so I put 'Graham Ovenden' into google images and was bloody shocked at some of the images - surely some of them are illegal? bigshock

Why are they still on google if he's gone to prison for making those images?

by **PeterMac** 25.12.14 9:09

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
OMG, I'd never heard of Graham Ovenden so I put 'Graham Ovenden' into google images and was bloody shocked at some of the images - surely some of them are illegal? Why are they still on google if he's gone to prison for making those images?

Now imagine what they did not show.
Lord McAlpine collected them. Sally B was rash enough to draw attention to this before he died, and Carter-Ruck got her.
They love protecting disgusting people, don't they.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 25.12.14 9:18

PeterMac wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
OMG, I'd never heard of Graham Ovenden so I put 'Graham Ovenden' into google images and was bloody shocked at some of the images - surely some of them are illegal? Why are they still on google if he's gone to prison for making those images?
Now imagine what they did not show.
Lord McAlpine collected them. Sally B was rash enough to draw attention to this before he died, and Carter-Ruck got her.
They love protecting disgusting people, don't they.

I was expecting to see photos of Graham Ovenden rather than the images he'd created. Now I feel like I need to take my eyes out and disinfect them. Why on earth are people like this protected? WHY? Why are they not put in a room with the children's mothers until justice is served?

Log in for more topics