The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Tony Bennett on 04.04.13 19:26

Apparently the Tate no longer considers his work 'art', now that Ovenden is a convicted sex offender against young girls:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22026730

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13977
Reputation : 2149
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by tigger on 04.04.13 20:00

@Tony Bennett wrote:Apparently the Tate no longer considers his work 'art', now that Ovenden is a convicted sex offender against young girls:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22026730

What gets me is that parents who've taken photographs of their children in the bath are hauled before a court, even when it's clear that it's part of a series of photos of their children in all sorts of daily situations - but take suggestive photographs of children not your own, call it art and suddenly it's OK and 'collectable' i.e. worth money to some people.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by plebgate on 04.04.13 21:20

@tigger wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Apparently the Tate no longer considers his work 'art', now that Ovenden is a convicted sex offender against young girls:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22027322

What gets me is that parents who've taken photographs of their children in the bath are hauled before a court, even when it's clear that it's part of a series of photos of their children in all sorts of daily situations - but take suggestive photographs of children not your own, call it art and suddenly it's OK and 'collectable' i.e. worth money to some people.

the link is bringing up the story about the lakes - but I don't understand how parents allow other people to take suggestive photos of their kids in the name of so called art.

No way would I let somebody buy a photo of a child of mine to hang up on their wall and certainly not a suggestive photo.

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1164
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Tony Bennett on 04.04.13 21:44

@plebgate wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Apparently the Tate no longer considers his work 'art', now that Ovenden is a convicted sex offender against young girls:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22027322

What gets me is that parents who've taken photographs of their children in the bath are hauled before a court, even when it's clear that it's part of a series of photos of their children in all sorts of daily situations - but take suggestive photographs of children not your own, call it art and suddenly it's OK and 'collectable' i.e. worth money to some people.

the link is bringing up the story about the lakes - but I don't understand how parents allow other people to take suggestive photos of their kids in the name of so called art.

No way would I let somebody buy a photo of a child of mine to hang up on their wall and certainly not a suggestive photo.
I am sorry, here is the correct link to the Graham Ovenden story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22026730

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13977
Reputation : 2149
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Olympicana_Reloaded on 05.04.13 2:20

@plebgate wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Apparently the Tate no longer considers his work 'art', now that Ovenden is a convicted sex offender against young girls:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22027322

What gets me is that parents who've taken photographs of their children in the bath are hauled before a court, even when it's clear that it's part of a series of photos of their children in all sorts of daily situations - but take suggestive photographs of children not your own, call it art and suddenly it's OK and 'collectable' i.e. worth money to some people.

the link is bringing up the story about the lakes - but I don't understand how parents allow other people to take suggestive photos of their kids in the name of so called art.

No way would I let somebody buy a photo of a child of mine to hang up on their wall and certainly not a suggestive photo.

Child Playboy star Eva Ionesco sues her photographer mother over 'stolen childhood'

Eva Ionesco has sued her mother for taking naked photos of her in the early Seventies which appeared in Playboy.

Irina Ionesco took several graphic portraits of her daughter aged between four and 11, which she then sold to European publications including French Playboy and Penthouse stirring major controversy.

Eva still holds the dubious honour of being the youngest model ever to appear naked in Playboy, and went on to make the story of her dysfunctional relationship with her mother the subject her directorial debut with the 2011 movie 'My Little Princess'.

This is the third time Eva, now 47, has tried to sue her mother for 'emotional distress' caused by her 'stolen childhood'. In 1998 the French police confiscated hundreds of photographs from her mother's apartment in which Eva appears at the age of five in suggestive poses and in complete nudity.

Irina Ionesco, 77, has now been ordered to pay her daughter €10,000 in damages and hand over negatives of the pictures, the Daily Mail reports, although the court has rejected her demand for €200,000 in damages and for her mother to be barred from profiting from the photographs.

Following the Playboy controversy, Irina lost custody of her daughter who was subsequently raised by the parents of renowned shoe designer Christian Louboutin.

Addressing the court in Paris, Eva's lawyer Jacques-Georges Bitoun spoke of the Seventies as 'an era when paedophile networks still had a lot of influence'.

'How can one open the legs of a four year old girl and take a snap? If art is photographing a child in these positions, I understand nothing of art. The child is never presented as a child but as a 'disguised prostitute'.'


http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG9757807/Child-Playboy-star-Eva-Ionesco-sues-her-photographer-mother-over-stolen-childhood.html

Olympicana_Reloaded

Posts : 167
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by tigger on 05.04.13 6:15

@ olympicana : That's a very interesting post!

Mothers who try to make money out of their children - (JonBenet Ramsey - the craze for dressing toddlers up as mini beauty queens) are the pits. She should have been able to stop her mother still profiting from her crime. It's only a partial victory.

This case is really awful - not likely to be that rare either. Tip of the iceberg.



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Guest on 05.04.13 8:07

@Tony Bennett wrote:Apparently the Tate no longer considers his work 'art', now that Ovenden is a convicted sex offender against young girls:
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22026730
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22026730[/quote[/url]]

Snipped Spivey's blog

Graham Ovenden (born 1943) is an Englishpainter, fine art photographer, writer and architect. His estranged wife is the artist Annie Ovenden. Their daughter, Emily, is a writer and is a singer with the Mediaeval Baebes. His depictions of children have resulted in several legal actions against him, but no convictions; his work has received support from leading figures in the art world, and is included in the Tate gallery collection. Source – Wikipedia

[size=18]

[size=12]In 2009 Ovenden’s house was raided by Police, resulting in the artist being dragged into court. The following is how the Telegraph reported it:


An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that indecent pictures of children found on his computer were “work in progress”, and not child pornography.

Graham Ovenden, 67, was found with indecent pictures in the file on his PC and despite trying to delete it and said they were to be used for an art work, a court heard.

Mr Ovenden is a painter, fine art photographer and writer, who has displayed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Tate and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

But officers found 16 separate images Mr Ovenden had created and 121 other indecent images stored in files in his computer’s memory, the court heard.

Officers found the files when they raided his Gothic mansion in Cornwall and Ovenden admits he made the images on his computer.

But Mr Ovenden – whose major works feature young girls – says the pictures were all being used to create an ”end product” for artistic display.

Mr Ovenden does not deny making the images but has pleaded not guilty to 34 different child porn offences.

Ramsay Quaife, prosecuting, at Truro Crown Court, said: ”What the police found was a graphic application called Adobe Photoshop, and its the use of the file browser in this programme to view the images which led to the cache files being created.

”You can be sure that the copy of the images in the cache is the same as the image made by Mr Ovenden – he was making these images, and a virtual trace or footprint was left on the computer.

”Through what the experts found on the computer and through admissions of the defendant, you can be quite sure the defendant was making indecent images on this computer.”

Officers raided Mr Ovenden’s home in November 2006 and Mr Quaife says he immediately admitted they were his pictures.

He said: ”When first asked about the images, Mr Ovenden said they were deliberately intended so we should find them, and that he had been working on his creations for about a year.

”He added ‘I am totally responsible in every way’. Mr Ovenden said to police, ‘the process of the image making is actually to create corruption, then overlay corruption’.”

The court heard in police interview Ovenden then quoted Shakespeare’s Hamlet to explain why he made the images.

Mr Quaife said: ”He told officers, ‘it is but skin and film, an ulcerus place, while rank corruption lies within’.

”But what the crown say is that there can be no doubt that these images are indecent – indecent pseudo images are indecent.

”By the means of modern technology, pretty much anyone can have a virtual studio on their computer – and he was busy making thoroughly indecent images on that computer.”

Robert Linford, defending, argued his client had the images as a means to create his famous artwork.

He says his client had shown completed work to officers which appeared to show the image of a young girl, with words of poetry superimposed over the image.

Mr Linford said: ”My client repeatedly wrote to the police and showed them these images of his final pieces of work.

”It would have been in rather flowery artistic language, but ‘look, here are the final prints, this is the final product’.

”He has repeatedly argued that the images seized from him were very much a work in progress, and that these were the final outcomes, the prints were the finished products.”

Mr Ovenden has pleaded not guilty to 16 counts of making indecent images of children, and 16 counts of making indecent sudo photographs of children.

He is also charged with two counts of possessing 121 indecent photographs and ”pseudo photographs” of children.

In 1975 Ovenden founded the artistic movement the ‘Brotherhood of Ruralists’ with then-wife Jann Haworth and fellow artists Graham Arnold and David Inshaw.

Mr Ovenden was born in Hampshire and attended Itchen Grammar School and the Royal College of Music before taking up painting around 1962.

He was tutored by Lord David Cecil and Sir John Betjeman and attended the Southampton School of Art, and graduated from the Royal College of Art in 1968.

However, the court case appeared to be plagued by problems, not least by the Police dragging their feet. On October 22nd 2009, two days into the trial, the Jury was discharged and a new court date set.

On April 9th 2010 the case was thrown out of court after a 5 minute hearing due to two police officers – Key Prosecution Witnesses – who failed to turn up. The Police later declined to comment and the CPS refused to disclose how much the three and a half year investigation had cost the Tax payer.

Just 9 days later, the Old Bill again swooped on Ovenden. The following is from the ‘Novel Activist’ website:

After the child pornography case was dismissed Ovenden was charged again: four counts of indecent assault on a girl under the age of 14, five counts of child neglect and four charges of false imprisonment – relating to offences committed in 1990. The case was due to be heard earlier this year (2011). It is now September and I cannot find any record of the trial being held.

This is odd.

If he had been found guilty surely the news would have been everywhere? The tabloids love this sort of story. So what happened? These charges are serious and if they had any merit the case would surely have proceeded? I can’t find any information. Perhaps the case was dismissed and it was only reported in the legal notices? I don’t know, but if anyone does, please let me know.

But there is another clue. The blog primarily discusses the fact that the Tate Modern removed its collection of Ovendens from their website. This was around the same time as the controversy over Spiritual America, which featured a young Brooke Shields (she approves of the picture).

But now the Tate has put the Ovendens back on their website. Could it be that Ovenden has been cleared, which means the Tate collection has also been cleared? Would the Tate place the collection on their website if he had been found guilty of serious child sex offences? I think not.

In any case, the fact that the Ovenden collection is available to the public means they provide a guide to what the Tate Modern thinks is legal and legitimate. You can see the collection here. I’ve reproduced one image – perhaps the most dramatic – to indicate just what the Tate thinks is acceptable.

Neither can Wikipedia shed any light on the verdict. The on-line Encyclopaedia mentions Ovenden’s arrest on the 19th of April 2010 but fails to make mention of the outcome

It is interesting however; that the Tate modern deems Ovenden’s work fit to exhibit. You can find out for yourself what this ‘art’ entails here: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/ovenden-she-kept-on-growing-p04732

I say it is interesting because The Tate is a member of the contemporary art society whose spiel reads: We promote the collecting of contemporary art through our gifts to public museums and the advice and guidance we offer companies and individuals. http://www.contemporaryartsociety.org/media/uploads/2010/07/4765/cas-2002-pdf.pdf

The Patron of the CAS is The Queer Mother, despite her being dead since 2002. Bill Maloney famously stood in the middle of a packed Trafalgar Square and loudly announced into a microphone that the Queer Mother was a Paedophile.

Of the ten Vice Patrons, two are the Viscount and Viscountess Windsor, and the third is none other than Lord McAlpine of West Green… AKA Lord Alistair McAlpine AKA Robert McAlpine AKA Nonce McAlpine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alistair_McAlpine,_Baron_McAlpine_of_West_Green

anyone but was quite disturbed by what he witnessed. Food for thought?

Note the reference to Bobby McAlpine. And what is Bobby short for… Just saying.

Returning to the Tate Gallery, they and a number of other Art Galleries which are also members of CAS, displayed one of the vilest photographs that I have ever seen in my life. How the f*** anyone can call the picture Art is beyond me. Anyone who does is most definitely sick in the f****** head.

The photo, called ‘Klara & Edda Belly-Dancing’ and taken by Nan Goldin in 1998, was displayed as part of a collection called Thanksgiving. The Photo is of two young girls, one clothed and the other naked, both of whom have their legs spread open.

According to matthewhunt.com the photo:

Has previously been seen in several international exhibitions: Thanksgiving (White Cube, London, 2000), I Am A Camera (Saatchi Gallery, London, 2001), Le Feu Follet (Centre Pompidou, Paris, 2001), The Devil’s Playground (Whitechapel Art Gallery, London, 2002; Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, Madrid, 2002; Castello di Rivoli, Rome, 2002-2003; Ujazdowski Castle, Warsaw, 2003), and Still On Earth (Fundacao de Serralves, Porto, 2002). There’s a full-page reproduction of the original image in Goldin’s monograph The Devil’s Playground (2002).

Unbelievably, it wasn’t until the collection reached the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Newcastle, that a complaint was made and on the advice of the Police, the photo was withdrawn.

God knows what kind of vile pervert would want to own a piece of Child Pornography such as ‘Klara & Edda Belly-Dancing’… Well, that is a lie actually. I do know who owns the photograph.

The owner – who in fact owns the whole collection – is a flamboyant homosexual named Reginald Kenneth Dwight. Dwight is of course, no other than Elton John, who along with his partner, David Furnish are Fathers to a two year old son. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7013806.stm

Below is the picture. It was my original intention to censor it, but in doing so, I believe that the full shock impact, innuendo and implications of the photo would have been lost. I have therefore decided to publish the photo uncensored.

In doing so I will not entertain any comments condemning me for it. You had your warning at the very start. If your too f****** thick to understand the warning that is your problem, but it will take you a lot longer to type your complaint, than it will take me to press the delete button.

If the photo makes you feel uncomfortable… Good, I hope it does. It should do. It is a vile piece of work.

Therefore, I make no apologies for publishing the photo in its original form. To censor it, is tantamount to not facing up to the horrors of child abuse. Everyone needs to be aware of what these fucking elite arseholes get off on.They are sick, sick, sick and if you people need to be shocked into action, then so be it.

After you have seen it, I would suggest that you never again purchase another one of the vile mans CD’s or concert tickets. This is the kind of obscene filth that he uses the revenue for. Can you imagine what would happen if the Social Services knew that the likes of me and you had a two year old child, while owning vile material like this shit? Exactly.

Deeply disturbing, shocking paintings and a photograph on Spivey's blog.



[/size]

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by plebgate on 05.04.13 10:32

I haven't looked at the picture nor will I as the article itself has made me feelthoroughly awful.

There are some really sick people who seem to be getting away with the most terrible of things. One really has to ask why are so many of these so called elite being allowed to get away with it all.

As for these sorts of pictures being termed art UBELIEVABLE.

Sick, vile, creatures the lot of them.

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1164
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Newintown on 05.04.13 13:13

@plebgate wrote:I haven't looked at the picture nor will I as the article itself has made me feelthoroughly awful.

There are some really sick people who seem to be getting away with the most terrible of things. One really has to ask why are so many of these so called elite being allowed to get away with it all.

As for these sorts of pictures being termed art UBELIEVABLE.

Sick, vile, creatures the lot of them.

Elton John and David Furnish have recently adopted a second son, as you say the "so called elite" are allowed to get away with anything.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Guest on 05.04.13 13:29

It's not quite the same as adoption Newintown as one or the other of them is the biological father of the children.

It is very hard to imagine the motivation of anyone who sells nude photos or paintings of children - other than for money of course.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Newintown on 05.04.13 13:36

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It's not quite the same as adoption Newintown as one or the other of them is the biological father of the children.

It is very hard to imagine the motivation of anyone who sells nude photos or paintings of children - other than for money of course.

Thanks for pointing that out, I'd forgotten that fact. It's still very creepy though that someone would want to buy a portrait of a nude young child with it's legs wide open, is it something anyone would want to hang on their wall for all and sundry to view? Family, friends, Mum & Dad for instance, I don't think so, unless it's kept confined to the inner sanctum.

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Guest on 05.04.13 14:24

@plebgate wrote:I haven't looked at the picture nor will I as the article itself has made me feelthoroughly awful.

There are some really sick people who seem to be getting away with the most terrible of things. One really has to ask why are so many of these so called elite being allowed to get away with it all.

As for these sorts of pictures being termed art UBELIEVABLE.

Sick, vile, creatures the lot of them.

Can't fault you there plebgate, I'll never in a month of Sundays understand the minds of these pervert's and their versions of art nor would I want to, it's downright porn.

Money & their social circle have kept them well protected.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Guest on 05.04.13 14:31

@Newintown wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It's not quite the same as adoption Newintown as one or the other of them is the biological father of the children.

It is very hard to imagine the motivation of anyone who sells nude photos or paintings of children - other than for money of course.

Thanks for pointing that out, I'd forgotten that fact. It's still very creepy though that someone would want to buy a portrait of a nude young child with it's legs wide open, is it something anyone would want to hang on their wall for all and sundry to view? Family, friends, Mum & Dad for instance, I don't think so, unless it's kept confined to the inner sanctum.

I can't remember were I read it but the whole collection was kept in a bank vault, taken out only for special viewing!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Lance De Boils on 05.04.13 15:09

Eww - I've just looked at some of those "artistic" pictures and... puke

Who the hell would want THOSE? Apart from the obvious answer.

Jeez - I'm disgusted. bad

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Tony Bennett on 05.04.13 18:12

I am going to answer my own question by quoting from a blog on the subject.

I cannot quote the whole article nor give the link as to give either might get me into trouble:

QUOTE FROM BLOG (Name of blog withheld)

If a bloke in a council house owned a collection of photos of naked prepubescent girls he would be arrested as a paedophile, dragged before the courts, found guilty, fined or imprisoned and put on the Sex Offenders Register. The stash would be confiscated and, hopefully destroyed.

But what happens when Lord McAlpine owns a “collection of erotic art” priced in the thousands of pounds? Did you notice the magic phrase, art collection? So because some rich (deleted) owns a collection of photographs or pseudo photographs it is now art.

Pseudo photographs are paintings that look like a real photographs, but have been painted while the subject poses or from photographs of the subject, who has previously posed. It changes nothing, kiddie porn is kiddie porn.

How the rich get away with it

Graham Ovenden is a painter and photographer who specialises in images of young girls. The UK police have made several attempts to prosecute him, but all have failed due to an outcry from Establishment figures who obviously believe that rich bastards are art collectors, but the lower classes are perverts. Anyone possessing images of children in erotic poses is a paedophile and should be locked up for at least 30-years, rich or poor.

Graham Ovenden was summoned to court on April 9, 2010. It resulted thus: “On October 22, 2009, after less than two days of trial, the jury was discharged and a new trial date set. On April 9, 2010, after a five-minute hearing the case was thrown out by the judge as two key prosecution witnesses, police officers who had searched his home three and a half years earlier, failed to appear in court. The police declined to comment and the CPS refused to disclose how much the investigation had cost the taxpayer. Graham Ovenden described the police as “totally and utterly transfixed by childhood sexuality” and himself as “a controversial figure and, at the moment, a very angry old man”. The prosecution declined to launch an appeal” (Text in italics from Wikipedia) I smell a cover up.

REST OF ARTICLE SNIPPED

UNQUOTE

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13977
Reputation : 2149
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Lance De Boils on 05.04.13 19:41

Seriously, they're not the sort of pictures anyone could actually display around their home, are they? I mean, where the hell could they ever hang them? Any normal, reasonable person who visited them at their home would be horrified to see their "art" collection and run a mile. So what is the point in them if not for personal gratification? Once more: bad

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Guest on 05.04.13 19:43

They could only be brought out to show to like-minded people - those who call themselves "child-loving adults".

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by aquila on 06.04.13 6:05

Today's Daily Mail

How the art establishment helped paedophile painter Graham Ovenden get away with child abuse for 20 years



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304791/How-art-establishment-helped-paedophile-painter-Graham-Ovenden-away-20-years.html#ixzz2PelqouUS


aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.04.13 7:47

@aquila wrote:Today's Daily Mail:

How the art establishment helped paedophile painter Graham Ovenden get away with child abuse for 20 years

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304791/How-art-establishment-helped-paedophile-painter-Graham-Ovenden-away-20-years.html#ixzz2PelqouUS
Not for the first time, the Daily Mail brings us news and stories that the rest of the British press seems to prefer to avoid.

From the article:

QUOTE

So is there anything in his background to suggest a predeliction for very young girls? Not on the face of it...He grew up in a Fabian household...

UNQUOTE

Hmmm...


+++++++


Fascinating also is the degree of denial about all this from the art establishment:

QUOTE

Among his staunchest defenders are the art-loving explorer and author Robin Hanbury-Tenison, 76, and his wife Louella, a former High Sheriff of Cornwall. Indeed, an Ovenden portrait of one of their sons - fully clothed - hangs in the sitting room of their manor house.

‘I simply do not believe Graham is capable of the allegations made against him,’ declares Mrs Hanbury-Tenison. ‘They are not credible in my view.’

Her husband adds: ‘These accounts are coming from women who are now in their 40s. One wonders why it has taken so long. I find it outrageous that there is shock-horror at him having painted little girls naked in the Sixties and Seventies. For this to be compared with the gross activities of people like Jimmy Savile or the appalling pornography on the internet - it just defies belief.

‘The blindfolding of a child [for art] — yes, I can see what he was trying to do in representing innocence and justice.

‘But it is the last gasp of puritanism to be concentrating on somehow making that innocence of childhood into something vulgar.’

As for Ovenden’s pictures of children, the great explorer says that the European art world is ‘laughing at Britain over its obsession with this matter’, adding: ‘As Oscar Wilde said, there is “no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality”.’Oh lucky man, Graham Ovenden, to have such loyal friends.

Sir Piers Rodgers, too, says he would not change the decision he took in 1995. ‘I would probably continue to take the same view now about his work that I did then,’ he admits. ‘What is obscenity is a matter of judgment.’

UNQUOTE

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13977
Reputation : 2149
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by plebgate on 06.04.13 8:06

High Sheriff of Cornwall. Quotes from Oscar Wild (as usual by the arty crafty luvvies) sooooo predictable.

Never mind the children, defend this "man" at all costs by the look of it.

Blindfolding a child to show innocence and justice?????

News your right High Sheriff snobs - All children are innocent, they do not need to be blindfolded to show that, leave our kids alone to remain innocent and keep sick pervs like this "aqrtist" away from them.

Shame on the parents who allowed this to happen.

I am sick of hearing how it was back in the 60s and 70s. It was as wrong then as it is now and all those involved in molesting children know it.

Art my arris.

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1164
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Tony Bennett on 06.04.13 8:08

Extract from 'The Tap' blog:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Lord McAlpine tidies his Wikipedia entry

I am Barbara Richards, or Zoompad and I am one of the survivors of the Staffordshire Pindown child abuse/cover up and secret family court persecution and abuse.

Ovenden's daughter:



I think Lord McAlpine's Wikipedia entry might have been altered recently, because there seems to be a tiny bit of it missing now. It was something about him being the mysterious buyer of some erotic art, I think it was a photographic collection. There was a link, that took you to the artist, Graham Ovenden, this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Ovenden

But now it seems to have been taken down, I can't see it any more on Lord McAlpine's Wikipedia entry.

From Ovenden's entry -

His depictions of children have resulted in several legal actions against him, but no convictions; his work has received support from leading figures in the art world, and is included in the Tate gallery collection.

COMMENTS -

Yes, it said: "In May 2003 the London ''Evening Standard'' reported that Lord McAlpine was the "well-known and
anonymous collector" for whom Bloomsbury Book Auctions was selling a collection of 344 "fashion and eroticism" photographs, including "10 snaps of very young girls in very suggestive poses by [Graham Ovenden]"."McAlpine erotic
sell-off", ''Evening Standard'', May 23 2003, p10"



Lord McAlpine, who netted over £300,000 after libel letters sent to the BBC and ITV




____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13977
Reputation : 2149
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by plebgate on 06.04.13 8:12

Another classic, stock answer in the article - why has it taken 40 years for these people to make a complaint.

Newsflash - many of the victimes have been fighting to be heard for years. It is only through the internet that these things are being challenged. How many articles have we seen over the years about these things - not very many, but now because there are brave people blogging info, some newspapers are also printing about it.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
Rolling Eyes

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1164
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by plebgate on 06.04.13 8:15

Sally Bercow will be reading with interest no doubt?

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1164
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by PeterMac on 06.04.13 8:17

From a webarchive version

Art and collecting

McAlpine has had a great interest in collecting a wide range of objects since his youth. A few of these are beads, books, furniture, police truncheons, dolls, textiles, ties, sculpture, [21][22], and especially artwork.[21] He was an early collector of painter Mark Rothko[1] He was very interested in Abstract expressionism and artists such as Morris Louis and Jackson Pollack.[21]. He also collected the work of Australian painter Sidney Nolan.[21] He has made collections of folk art from various continents. [21] He was also interested in modern sculpturists such as William Turnbull, Naum Gabo, nl:Michael Bolus, and nl:David Annesley,[21]
At one point he owned a gallery on Cork Street. [3]
In May 2003 the London Evening Standard reported that Lord McAlpine was the "well-known and anonymous collector" for whom Bloomsbury Book Auctions was selling a collection of 344 "fashion and eroticism" photographs, including "10 snaps of very young girls in very suggestive poses by Graham Ovenden".[23]

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Now, who was it that used to collect Graham Ovenden's pics?

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 06.04.13 8:22

@Tony Bennett wrote:I am going to answer my own question by quoting from a blog on the subject.

I cannot quote the whole article nor give the link as to give either might get me into trouble:

QUOTE FROM BLOG (Name of blog withheld)

If a bloke in a council house owned a collection of photos of naked prepubescent girls he would be arrested as a paedophile, dragged before the courts, found guilty, fined or imprisoned and put on the Sex Offenders Register. The stash would be confiscated and, hopefully destroyed.
And rightly so. Anyone twisted enough to se a child as something to be sexually exploited should be removed from society.

But what happens when Lord McAlpine owns a “collection of erotic art” priced in the thousands of pounds? Did you notice the magic phrase, art collection? So because some rich (deleted) owns a collection of photographs or pseudo photographs it is now art.
That's how the "super-elite" operate, under the delusion that they are so superior that normal rules don't apply. A bit like that murdering Tony Blair, who thought that killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens would be good for the country, before becoming a Middle East Peace Envoy (you couldn't make it up). And that sliding in and nicking their oil is somehow OK. At least it bolstered his bank balance by tens of millions. Shame he didn't decide to take himself and the missus off somewhere to live their lives out as recluses.

Pseudo photographs are paintings that look like a real photographs, but have been painted while the subject poses or from photographs of the subject, who has previously posed. It changes nothing, kiddie porn is kiddie porn.

How the rich get away with it

Graham Ovenden is a painter and photographer who specialises in images of young girls. The UK police have made several attempts to prosecute him, but all have failed due to an outcry from Establishment figures who obviously believe that rich bastards are art collectors, but the lower classes are perverts. Anyone possessing images of children in erotic poses is a paedophile and should be locked up for at least 30-years, rich or poor.

Graham Ovenden was summoned to court on April 9, 2010. It resulted thus: “On October 22, 2009, after less than two days of trial, the jury was discharged and a new trial date set. On April 9, 2010, after a five-minute hearing the case was thrown out by the judge as two key prosecution witnesses, police officers who had searched his home three and a half years earlier, failed to appear in court. The police declined to comment and the CPS refused to disclose how much the investigation had cost the taxpayer. Graham Ovenden described the police as “totally and utterly transfixed by childhood sexuality” and himself as “a controversial figure and, at the moment, a very angry old man”. The prosecution declined to launch an appeal” (Text in italics from Wikipedia) I smell a cover up.
Describing the police as transfixed on child sexuality is one of the most hypocritical statements one could ever read. They are transfixed, if anything, with rounding up these horrible, dirty old men and keeping them away from innocent children.

REST OF ARTICLE SNIPPED

UNQUOTE

What scares me so much about these evil pedophiles, is that they actually think they are entitled. They really don't seem to believe what they are doing is wrong and that someone else's child is out of bounds. It's the single minded evil within them that sees peoples precious, innocent children as being there for their "use". It is the most dangerous, deluded and sick mindset that I can think of. I really think anyone with this sort of disposition should be removed from society for the remainder of their life. To think that they get let out after a couple of years, if they even get jailed, is appalling. In doing so, the Courts are failing every child in the country, because the insanity of pedophilia is not curable.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum