Translate

Friday 8 February 2013

OVENDEN IT IS NOT ART IT IS CHILD PORN FOR RICH PEADOPHILES LIKE MCALPINE

Lord McAlpine is a Paedophile

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 paedophile owns a collection of photographs or pseudo photographs it is now art. Pseudo photographs are paintings that look like a real photograph and painted while the subject poses or from photographs of the subject who has posed for them. 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 at prosecuting him, but all have failed due to an outcry from Establishment figures who obviously believe that rich bastards are art collectors and 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. “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.” 

 I smell a cover up.  read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Ovendend more

There is enough evidence to prosecute McAlpine


When Jimmy Savile was finally exposed as a paedophile, Lord McAlpine’s name came up as being one of the predators in a Tory Paedo ring who abused boys and girls in children’s homes. He cried foul and made a very public denial. The BBC, who never actually named him, paid him £185,000 compensation. Why? And why did they also cancel an exposé of the dead Savile a month before they celebrated his life in a Christmas special? Because they are part of the Establishment and Jimmy Savile, despite rumour and police investigation performed his stupid clown act on the BBC for 50-years. People knew but did nothing.



Lord McApine was exposed by the now defunct Scallywag magazine in the early 1990s. He never sued! David Ike in his book ‘The Biggest Secret’ named McAlpine as a paedophile. McAlpine never sued. So why is he so worried now? Here’s why, the Savile revelations have opened a can of worms that will and are exposing paedophiles in high places. They are in government, the Civil Service, the Church, the Entertainment industry, the Judiciary and the House of Lords, aren’t you Lord McAlpine. People know but are doing nothing.

I believe there is enough evidence to charge and convict on ownership of the Ovenden Collection alone and a proper investigation could bring this dying pervert to book on other even more serious charges. Will the cops investigate? Don’t hold your breath.  source http://theduckshoot.com/lord-mcalpine-is-a-paedophile/


Daily Mail, 13th March 1993
by Peter Rose

A SOCIETY photographer and an artist were at the centre of a major child pornography investigation last night.
Up to 100 children – many from upper-class families – are thought to have been victims of a porn ring which could have been operating for 15 to 20 years.
Ronald Oliver, whose photographic studio is patronised by the rich and famous, was arrested and questioned about allegations that indecent photographs of children had been taken and distributed.
Artist Graham Ovenden, 51, who received world-wide publicity in 1980 when he was accused of an elabo-rate hoax on the art world involving photographs of Victorian-style waifs and strays, was also arrested and questioned.
So was another artist, Terence Walters, and a photographer Gregory Potter. All four have been released on bail, pending further inquiries.
The four men were arrested after a secret two-month investigation by Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications squad, which seized hundreds of photographs, along with letters and diaries. Backed up by child protection teams, they carried out raids in West London, Cornwall and Kent.
The alleged victims of the ring are believed to be aged eight and upwards. Last night detectives were trying to identify them, so that their parents could be informed.


We apologise for reproducing these pseudo  photographs of  naked children in sexual poses, sadly  these images  are easily found on a goggle search . We reproduce them only to make a call for the destruction of these pseudo photographs and the prosecution  of Ovenden and those rich men who own Ovenden pseudo photographs and Ovenden so called art.

5 comments:

  1. 1. the above are paintings not "sudo" photos, 2. please correct your spelling of "sudo", 3. People are innocent until proven guilty, 4. let's not leave it to the uninformed to be judge & jury...

    Whose truth are you talking about; your own corrupted insight & insecurity? I'm curious to know why you have such an interest in this matter, do you have a vested interest?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pervert painter and paedophile Graham Ovenden is on trial in Truro, Cornwall. http://wp.me/p2QGVg-9H

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above statements may prove to be absolutely correct. But why present the material in such a beligerant, rabble-rousing fashion ? It's this sort of approach to things we have yet to understand that got innocent old ladies burned as witches by the infamous Matthew Hopkin.
      What about a serious evaluation of nudity in art down through the centuries, then focussing on the depiction of child nudity. How is pornography defined? Is it a fact, or simply in the eye of the beholder ? Who decides what is decent and what is indecent ?
      I would not want to see genuine perverts talk their way out of their just deserts, but are we in danger of emptying out the baby with the bath water here ?
      This over-zealous "pedo hunting" is beginning to look and sound like the fire and brimstone ravings of the Victorian religious fanatics, for whom virtually everything could be intepreted as a sin.

      Delete
  3. lol if this is cp u just committed the offence of producing indecent pseudo-images cos they consider 'copying' = producing same as if u painted/took the photo urself. so u r a pedo too. and thx for spamming cp all over everyones pc who comes here btw. if u r from the uk or this blog is hosted in the uk i think ur best defence is that the tate gallery didnt begin removing this 'art' until today (4th april 2013) and to remove the images (and state that until their status is clarified legally, u wont risk showing them)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your helful advice. Now that Ovenden has been convicted we will certainly take them down. I think we have made our point.

      But right now we are compaigning for Google to take them down as they are readily accesable to anyone who google ovenden

      Delete

We welcome all points of view but do not publish malicious comments. We would love to hear from you if you want to e-mail us with tips, information or just chat e-mail talkingtous@hotmail.co.uk