What do you know of the trial of the artist Graham Ovenden? That he taped pubescent girl’s eyes shut with sticky black tape, sexually abused them, distributed photographs of them, was found guilty – and now, shock, horror, has been allowed to walk free – apparently no longer a danger to little girls?

If you are wondering how he can ‘no longer be a danger to little girls’, you must be assuming that he is now senile, impotent, no longer a photographer, and some means of preventing him buying sticky black tape has been found? An Asbo issued ordering shopkeepers within a 30 mile radius of his Cornish home not to sell him any gaffer tape perhaps? Chemical castration performed? Tattooed with the words ‘Paedophile’ on his forehead? Forced to live on an uninhabited rock off the Scilly Isles?

For are not all paedophiles prolific predatory repeat offenders? Do they not spend every waking moment of their day looking for new opportunities to brutally sexually abuse small innocent bodies; conjure their entire career to concoct further opportunities to defile another vulnerable child?

If that is the way you are thinking this morning, you must have been reading the main stream media.  Allow me to take you further afield, not in defence of ‘art’ – there are more than enough commentators taking that angle, but in defence of truth – as opposed to keyword hit garnering moral puritanism as practised by the main stream media. Even the Guardian, which is not as other newspapers who merely discuss these issues as an excuse for titillating their readers; no, the Guardian write multiple learned articles on the same subject because they care – the fact that they get the same hits on their keywords by tagging their articles ‘porn’ is but an unfortunate side effect of such ‘caring’…

This is not the first time Graham Ovenden has been brought before the courts to face charges of a sexual nature involving children. By the same prosecutor, Ramsay Quaife, as it happens. Is that relevant? We shall see. Back in 1993, the police were desperately trying to give one of his young models, Maud Hewes, ‘a voice’ as they say in modern puritan parlance. It wasn’t as though Maud had gone to them with a complaint, far from it, in fact the year before she had travelled to New York to make her feelings on the matter abundantly clear, when the American authorities had tried to declare the photograph obscene.

I have known Graham Ovenden as a family friend for fourteen years – since I was four years old. I have modelled for Graham on numerous occasions – in fact, too numerous to count – for both his photographs and paintings. I have modelled for him both clothed and fully nude, both alone and with other children…. The portrait which the United States has charged as indecent is a portrait of me as I was eight years ago. I am not acting in a sexual way in the picture and Graham never asked me to be sexual or treated me as a sexual object. The accusation that the image is “obscene” is, to me, an accusation that I am “obscene,” something to which I take offence.

The Police in Britain were unwilling to accept that Maud knew her own mind; surely she must be in denial, needed help to understand that a naked eight year old is an obscene sight, something no one could look on with anything other than sheer deviant lust. They thought they would help matters along by cutting and pasting the images, so that Maud could be brought to the point where she would understand that she had been violated…

When [the police] interviewed me and they looked at my photographs and they were sort of pointing at them and they were condemning — they were “condemned,” they were, like, “pornographic,” and “Didn’t I realise that these people had used me,” and “I was just a child,” and “I didn’t know,” and “how could I possibly know that’s how it happened?” Basically [they said] I had been brainwashed, you know? But he was actually looking at images of myself when he was saying that: “Do you not think this is pornography? Look at this and this and this: is it not pornography?” And it’s a picture of ME!

The other thing that they did was they took the photographs and they chopped them up — they highlighted bits of them, or they showed a little bit of the photograph. It was completely out of context. And they’d be sort of going, “Oh… yeah…” And it WAS pornographic like that, in a sense.

This isn’t the police ‘giving victims a voice’, this is the puritan police grooming an innocent girl into becoming their voice. Teaching her that her body was obscene. Unfortunately for them, Maud Hewes was having none of it. Not in 1993, nor in 2009, nor in 2013.

In that same year Ovenden’s daughter Emily told The Guardian about the pressure the models had been placed under.

She knows how her friend Maud was reduced to tears, not by the recall of actual events but by the questioning about sexual acts that never took place. She knows how Maud’s father felt threatened and bullied. She knows how traumatised they all were by their contact with the police – so traumatised that she’s certain none of them want to talk about it.

Mention of Ovenden’s daughter Emily, brings me to important family matters. Ovenden also has a son Ned. JB, one of the models who was to make the accusations in 2013, is married to Ned’s best friend. The family appear to be split between those who support Ned and those who support Emily. It is, I understand, a bitterly divided family. This may or may not be relevant – but it is strange that it was never mentioned to the jury. Over 70 young girls modelled for Ovenden at various periods of his life; Three times he has been investigated by police, has been the subject of considerable media coverage, yet only two of the models ever even alleged abuse, both those close to his son Ned; others of the 70 models came forward to vigorously defend him.

So what of the allegations? The lurid black tape of the Daily Mail’s coverage? You wouldn’t be aware of it from the coy Daily Mail coverage, but that was one of the first charges to be dispensed with. It simply didn’t happen. It was white, it was a blind fold, not sticky tape; the girl was posing for a drawing commissioned by art collector Harry Lunn intended to depict ‘Blind Justice’. Although the police were in possession of all of Mr. Ovenden’s photographic work from the late 1950s until he photographed his last child model in 1989, they were unable to point to a single image that depicted full frontal nudity of a model with a blindfold or tape over her eyes. That is because such images did not exist.

The blindfolded girl who, like the other three former models, testified from behind a screen, denied that Mr. Ovenden ever sexually abused her. 

What of the ‘locked door’ behind which these unspeakable acts took place? There was no lock to the studio, as Ovenden’s estranged wife came forward to testify – note ‘estranged’, hardly his strongest supporter!

None of Ovenden’s published photographs and none of his drawings or paintings were the subject of any accusations against him. Back in 2009, the police had raided his house during a three and half year long investigation. They investigated the hard drive of his computer and discovered 121 images, all versions or stages of the 16 drawings he had made and which had all been deleted from Ovenden’s computer at the time his home was raided in 2006. The photograph above is one of those images. After two days of trial during which the main prosecution witnesses, the two policemen who had raided his house, had failed to turn up, the judge threw the case out…

Fast forward to 2013. The prosecutions case was that Ovenden had sexually abused four girls. Two of the girls testified that no such thing ever happened! So much for the careful police grooming. The other two girls made the accusations regarding the locked door (dismissed) the electrical tape over their eyes (dismissed) the fact that they were alone with him (dismissed, there was always a chaperone) and…

JB testified that when she was six years of age, Mr. Ovenden got into a bath with her and another girl, handed her a washcloth, and asked her to wash his “John Thomas.” She did so, she said, because she didn’t know any better and it was only years later that she claims to have realised or remembered that his penis was erect. She further testified that when she was 10, Mr. Ovenden embraced her from behind while she was fully-clothed, and said “Let me feel your tits.”

JB was the daughter of a close friend of Ovenden who frequently stayed at his house. The fact that she later, after this event was alleged to have taken place, returned to his house to become one of his models may well be testament to his successful ‘grooming’.

But that is the full extent of her allegations and also a complete account of the only crimes of sexual abuse for which Mr. Ovenden was convicted at trial.

If that account is truthful, and I accept that the jury believed it, they are better placed than I to judge its veracity, then it was an utterly inappropriate act that should be condemned and punished. I also take into account that it is her word, 30 years later, against his – but bear in mind, after three attempts to prosecute Ovenden, copious publicity, this is the only sexual crime of which he stands convicted. If he really was a serial predatory paedophile using his studio to lure young innocents into his embrace, do you not find it slightly curious that only one of his 70 models claims to have been sexually abused, and that outside his studio and nothing to do his supposedly pornographic work?

So, to the other offences of which Ovenden was convicted: The pornographic images. The very same ones that had appeared in the 1993 prosecution, were scheduled to appear in the failed 2009 prosecution, and showed up yet again as ‘specimen charges’ in the 2013 prosecution. ‘Specimen charges’ are a very specific instruction to a jury.

Count [X] is a specimen Count. The prosecution allege that D[efendant] also committed numerous other offences of the same kind. Instead of loading up the Indictment with Counts charging many offences, they have selected one as an example, as they are entitled to do. However, you may convict D[efendant] only if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the particular offence charged in the Count [X], whether or not you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he also committed other such offences.

In other words, the jury is asked to look at a photograph in isolation of other evidence, and decide whether they think (30 years later) that it is an ‘indecent image’.  If they do, then it is immaterial whether they think the other photographs in the ‘collection’ are actually indecent or not. Remember too, that these were photographs taken of naked children, posing for a drawing retrieved from Ovenden’s hard drive – had he deleted them because he thought some were inappropriate? We shall never know.

I turn to part of a letter written by Maud Hewes’ mother to Ovenden, after the police had visited her remote Orkney home to pressurise Maud (the subject of those photographs) yet again.

The mode of questioning was more like interrogation than anything else – very manipulative, full of leading questions and in Joseph’s case they used both veiled and open threats. After 20-30 minutes Platt had reduced [Maud] to tears. At this stage I was allowed in. She said he became much less heavy and manipulative after this. Eventually she agreed to write a statement. Platt tried to steer it but she resisted quite well. In fact she showed an admirable defiant independence. Platt read it and said later to Joseph that she had been schooled by Graham Ovenden. He forgets of course that she is nineteen, intelligent and articulate, and that she’s been out to the States to testify in a similar case.

It’s not quite the tale as portrayed by the main stream media is it? The question is, why are the police behaving like this? Decrying young girls as deluded fools for believing that there is nothing wrong with their young bodies? Trying to ‘groom’ victims to give evidence that they don’t believe?

Are we to believe that Michaelangelo and every other artist that has portrayed the naked body has worked from imagination, or are they all paedophiles, taking up art as a career for the titillation of other paedophiles?

Don’t even think of photographing your own young children in the bath..Swiss artist Strba’s 1990 photograph (of her then 12-year old daughter naked in the bath) became the subject of London’s Metropolitan Police’s enquiries into the possible commission of a criminal offence. They settled for prosecuting the gallery where the picture was on display.

Needless to say, the usual suspects have been out squawking this morning, appalled that Graham Ovenden hasn’t been given a custodial sentence…

Peter Saunders, chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said: “It’s an absolutely outrageous decision. A suspended sentence is not appropriate for such serious crimes and it doesn’t take into account the suffering inflicted on the victims. (Do read Moor Larkin’s brilliantly researched article on Peter Saunders!).

Mark Williams-Thomas (naturally): “He should have been jailed. Artist Graham Ovenden given a suspended sentence for sexually abusing young girls”.

The Guardian (for a while) carried a comment by someone alleging she was one of Ovenden’s victims…

Donna El Berry
08 April 2013 9:40am
what is painful for us he abused is this,wile the pics were taken we were being abused this is hidden as the pics are changed a bit with bright colors etc,so its like a complex i feel everyone can see me naked,sounds mad but thats the psychological damage from hes abuse.i wish all the pics of us were removed not just from the Tate,every day he sells pics of me and the other abused girls,some for over £.2000 EACH THIS MAKES ME SICK WILE I HAD A DISTURBED LIFE FROM HIM AND HES SICK FANTICS I LIVED ON THE STREETS ETC, never able to reach my full potential staved for many years etc he feeds of my pics. for 30 years i was called a lier etc bullied to the point of suicide.now i can slowly start my life ,shame is im 47 and not eating cos of hes sick food games and abuse i have not much left of me to have a life,i dedicated my life to proving hes a abuser and abused us,its took me 40 years of demos riots and complete press harassment and lies written about me,the papers all called me a lier last year now they are all jumping on the band wagon, not one of them has apologized,im more damaged by the c.p.s. and people calling me a lier and the proceeder of getting him to court than the abuse now,love to all,always protect you kids as abuse damage is life long,peace.” (sic!)

Er, surely not that Donna Berry, victim of so very many tragedies?

There really is no more room on the bandwagon, petal!

** I am indebted to Bruce Wagner’s website here, and Ray Harris’ web site here, for their copious research and much background information. 

Mark June 14, 2013 at 07:20

Hope you don’t mind if I post this here under the name of ‘Mark’ as there
is a spanner in the works.

In all my years of contributing to various forums I’ve only had messages
censored on sites that claim to be seeking the truth, this week I not only
censored but for the first time ever banned from a forum.

The forum in question has the banner ‘Bursting inflated egos & pricking
dulled consciences’ but whatever you do don’t query anything on that website
for fear of pricking the ego of the author of the website.

I had pointed out the evidence from hundreds of people to Yewtree was that
Jimmy Savile was not the head of a national paedophile ring delivering
children to politicians and prominent people to abuse. The CPS report on the
claims by former Duncroft girls to Surrey Police gave no indication of them
being passed around.

But that wasn’t good enough for contributors to that forum, with a nudge
and a wink they made it clear I didn’t know ‘all the facts’, yet the facts are
hundreds complained and no evidence of a paedophile ring was disclosed. The
website author accused me of misrepresenting his words, but he had a page
headlined ‘Jim’ll Fix It For Ted Heath’ and a line about supplying a
minor.

I also queried the authenticity of images showing a list of names of
prominent people, who were said to have stayed at a gay brothel in the early
1980’s where it is claimed children were abused. Among the names were a Home
Secretary, a member of Sinn Fein, members of the Monday Club and a well known
pop singer.

Among other things I found it bizarre at a time Irish republicans were
bombing and killing politicians a Home Secretary and members of the Monday
Club were part of a network that included a Sinn Fein member.

For daring to question the list I came under attack but my questions
unanswered. Unbeknown to me the author of the website on May 29 had themselves
cast doubt on elements of the list, which they had first published in Janaury
2013. Now the website is saying ‘Person A’ (the pop singer) who’s name is
still openly listed as visiting a house ‘synonymous with the abuse of boys’
has been declared a ‘poofter’ but there’s no evidence the singer was a child
abuser.

What evidence did they have before he was a child abuser? The total
evidence they have that he visited the house ‘synonymous with the abuse of
boys’ appears to be…”‘Person A’ is gay …. It is extremely likely that ‘Person
A’ did visit the Elm Guest House, it was after all a gay guest house.”

The website site author then holds the pop singer to blame for not coming
out of the closet. The author says they think the singer sued someone for
calling him gay. Later in reply to someone and without any evidence that
became, “Don’t forget that Person A has sued people for saying he was gay.”
When asked when and whom were sued the author of website does not answer.

What broke the camel’s back was me pointing out one their heroes the late
Geoffrey Dickens MP through his campaigns against Satanism and child abuse may
have led to such scandals as Cleveland and The Orkney’s, I linked to an
article by two women who as young children had been taken into care due to a
discredited medical test carried out by a Dr. Marietta Higgs & Dr.
Geoffrey Wyatt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-438208/The-women-went-ordeal-belief.html

For linking to and pasting quotes from the article, all the message was
censored, I was banned and the public informed…

“The edited post also pushed the paedo-friendly False Memory Syndrome.”

Which was news to me.

Anna
Raccoon June 14, 2013 at 07:38

Perhaps you ought to try cutting your teeth on something simpler first
Mark – like going onto the Guardian web site and trying to convince them
that ‘child poverty in the UK’ isn’t akin to the deprivation in the
Somalian refugee camps, or maybe ‘Jihadwatch’ and tell them that you have
found a peace loving Muslim. You have really jumped into the deep end going
onto that particular site and suggesting that everything the MSM say about
Yewtree isn’t necessarily ‘the gospel according to the paedo hunters……’

Cassandra June 7, 2013 at 14:51

This is v. interesting. I wondered when I read the boilerplate
blindfold/nightgown accusations whether the police had been feeding the
accusers the ‘similar fact’ evidence so useful for a conviction. Perhaps it’s
my inattentiveness or simply sloppy journalism, but I didn’t realize that
those charges had failed and he was convicted of another offence
altogether.
So often the press obscures rather than reveals. In the
coverage of the recent Brewer case, attention necessarily focused on the
tragic death of Frances Andrade. Did anyone notice how slender the evidence
against Mrs Brewer seemed to be? No indication of a likelihood of her
assaulting another woman and the charge of rape (to which her assault was
supposedly a prelude) was dropped. Or was there other evidence the journalists
didn’t tell us?

Bruce
Wagner June 7, 2013 at 18:31

It was the journalists who failed, not you. There were two journalists at
trial, but each attended only a couple of court sessions. In addition, they
were fed (and swallowed) whatever Mr. Quaife wanted to tell them about the
charges and Mr. Ovenden. All the newspapers, across the board, repeated what
these journalists reported, ad infinitum. So much for an independent press.
The victim statements were also “cookie cutter” affairs, essentially
claiming all the same things…undoubtedly to justify victim compensation
sought – upwards of 20,000 quid.

Smoking Hot June
7, 2013 at 14:29

The law doesn’t discriminate between nudity and clothed for images to be
deemed erotic and thus committing an offence. Many parents let their daughters
experiment with makeup and dressup. lndeed the mothers actually teach them how
to apply makeup … years before the daughters reach 16. Then we have the Miss
Mini Beauty Pageants (copied from the USA) where the girls are dressed in all
sorts of outfits including swimwear. The models/contestants makeup is done by
their mothers and professional hairdressers are sought to do the
models/contestants hair. The top hairdressers include men. Many, many of these
girls want to become models (fame and fortune) … with the complete backing of
their parents. There are millions of photos of these girls produced every year
… many perfectly capable of being deemed erotic and thus breaking the law. If
some of these are taken by model agencies then the images produced are even
more likely to fall into this category.

Take Thylane Blondeau for instance and the Vogue shoot. lt was done
provocatively on purpose, it was intended to shock and indeed it did … job
done for Vogue and Thylane. Will we see the photographers, makeup ariists,
hairdressers etc up in court in years to come? Will Thylane accuse them of
molestation once she is no longer in the public eye? The opportunity was
certainly there whilst all the preparation for the shoot went on. Thylane
would certainly have only being wearing a dressing gown or towel whilst her
hair and makeup was done. Then there is her ‘dresser’ to consider … another
opportunity for molestation.

And what about all the girls that don’t make it? Do they stop using makeup
and dressing up in clothes that could be deemed provocative or indeed by some
as erotic? Do they reject any photo opportunities? You can judge for
yourselves by a quick look at Facebook or Twitter … to mention but 2.

l doubt anyone is really safe from accusations or prosecution nowadays
regardless whether one is famous, rich or not … there be Dragons!

Saul June 7, 2013 at 14:22

Once again, I have never said that it is pornographic. I just don’t see how
it is normal for a grown man to want to take naked photographs of young
girls.
As far as I’m aware he poses his models and gives them various
“Lolita” titles. This is worlds away from kids playing in a bath or on a
beach.

In my opinion it is a fetish of his, dressed up as “Art.”

Anna
Raccoon June 7, 2013 at 16:18

I thought the word you used was immoral rather than pornographic?

I don’t find anything strange in an artist wanting to work from life
rather than imagination. That is normal rather than deviant.

Personally, if I was asked to allow my child to model for an artist, I
would far prefer that he took photographs rather than ask my child to stand
for hours in a pose whilst he drew/painted. Irrespective of whether they
were clothed or not. That is a different question.

Would I allow my child to be a nude model? That depends on a) whether I
had a child who habitually ran around naked on beaches and in the garden,
and b) whether I felt I knew the artist well enough to be reassured, and c)
if a and b applied, and my child was good friends with his children and his
wife, as they were in this case, I can’t see that my first thought would be
‘this isn’t normal for a grown man to want to take naked photographs of
young girls’.

In other circumstances, such as a casual neighbour who happened to be a
bus driver saying ‘can I take photographs of your daughter naked’, my answer
would be a resounding No!

That is what is wrong with all this, we are being encouraged to believe
that there can be no other reason than deviance for such a situation to
occur – I think there can.

My best friend’s children spent most of their young life naked, they just
preferred it that way. Had I sketched or photographed them, no one would
have thought anything of it. I am sure that at one time I must have had
photographs of all of us that would have included shots of them naked.

Indeed, when we all went to Australia, I shared a bedroom with the two of
them for two months. Both boys, aged 12 and 14. You think there aren’t
female paedophiles?

Come to that, I’m wondering now if they aren’t out there somewhere
wondering how to bring historic sex abuse claims against me? How could I
possibly defend myself if both boys claimed that I had fondled them as they
slept? Perhaps with the aid of a school friend who ‘remembers’ them telling
him about it and saying they had been too embarrassed to report me at the
time? Neither of my friends are still alive, so there is no one who could
speak up for the circumstances in which we came to share a room.

Should my friends have thought it ‘immoral and unnatural’ that I shared a
room with them? We were just grateful that we had managed to get two
adjoining rooms in the centre of Sydney, and they were grateful that I was
the one prepared to share with the noisy little horrors (apologies J and J
if you are reading this!)so that they, a couple, could have more
privacy.

Makes me shiver now to think how those days could be viewed through a
modern lens.

I reiterate – there are female paedophiles too – but now we are
encouraged to think only in terms of the danger that men present. A danger
which is statistically insignificant compared to the danger of abuse within
the family.

Saul June 7, 2013 at 16:32

“I thought the word you used was immoral rather than pornographic?”

It was, every one else keeps bringing the word pornographic up.

Bruce
Wagner June 7, 2013 at 19:03

The “Lolita” images were part of a series of a dozen aquatints completed
in 1975. Those were the only images I know of that bear a “Lolita” title and
they bear that title because they were inspired by Nabokov’s book. Joanne
Harris (yes, author of Chocolat) said in an article about Mr. Ovenden’s work
(which I will publish in the coming weeks), “Ovenden’s portrayal of Lolita
s…takes the form of a series of astonishing pencil drawings…showing Lolita
nude, recumbent, seductive, thoughtful, post-coital, and lastly, The Final
Reproach, representing both victim and judge, the girl’s pointing finger and
accusatory stare conveying her contempt and hatred for the one who has
seduced her. It is an uncomfortable topic on which to dwell, both for the
artist and for the audience, and Lolita’s gesture condemns not only the
fictional Humbert, but anyone who looks at these portraits with the
slightest trace of guilty in his heart.”

As for reasons why a grown-up artist would focus on young girls,
including naked ones, in his art and photography, there are many. Art is a
dialogue between the artist and society and between the artist and the
viewer. Given the great consternation that this topic causes, it is a
natural subject for art. In addition, I would note that evolutionary
psychologist Donald Symons, in discussing the nature and character of male
attraction to females, both in our own culture and cross-culturally through
time, wrote, “When male mating psychology is better understood, even the
notion of a single, unitary continuum of ‘sexual attraction’ may turn out to
be too simple. Margaret Mead wrote in Male and Female that everywhere girls
are permanently clothed before boys, and that a little girl will be taught
to cross her legs, or to tuck her heels under her, or to sit with her legs
parallel. This is because ‘Older boys and men find little girls of four and
five definitely female and attractive, and that attractiveness must be
masked and guarded just as the male eye must be protected from the
attractiveness of their older sisters and mothers.’ (Mead, 1967.) During the
course of human evolutionary history men may often have been betrothed and
even married to prepubescent girls, as often occurs among living preliterate
peoples. Male mating psychology may turn out to include sentiments, which
are elicited by very young females, that are not exactly sexual, but not
exactly not sexual either, sentiments for which there are no specific words
in the English language.” Although Mr. Ovenden has never read this article,
I believe his work nonetheless engages this idea in part, exploring through
Art sentiments that are lacking in words. I say “in part” because there are
many other aspects to the dialogue contained in in Mr. Ovenden’s work,
including his collaboration with the models themselves in creating his
artwork.

I’ll be writing about these subjects in the coming weeks and quoting Mr.
Ovenden and others about his work, because these are important issues that
should not be dismissed with a simple “this is unnatural” or “not normal.” I
don’t mean to disrespect Saul in any way when I say this. I think a lot of
people (and I don’t know if this includes Saul) haven’t given much thought
as to what is, or isn’t, a proper subject for exploration through art.

Bruce
Wagner June 7, 2013 at 19:05

Sorry, I didn’t leave the citation for the Donald Symons article. It’s
from a book called “Sexual Nature, Sexual Culture.” The article is,
Chapter Five, “Beauty is in the Adaptations of the Beholder: The
Evolutionary Psychology of Human Female Sexual Attractiveness.”

Saul June 7, 2013 at 19:14

That’s fair comment Bruce, you have your opinion regarding the
artworthy aspect of this, whilst I have my opinion based on my own
thoughts on the subject. I respect your view but unfortunately I can’t
agree with it. I most certainly am able to consider many things to be
art or not. However in this particular case I can’t. I can commend you
though on your reasoned attempts to persuade me otherwise.

Saul June 7, 2013 at 08:42

I’m astounded that in 60+ comments I am the only one who finds it unnatural
for a man to want to take naked photographs of young girls.

Moor
Larkin June 7, 2013 at 09:28

@Saul
You seemed to be saying it was immoral earlier? Or am I
misconstruing too?

If a man was wandering around taking such photographs randomly it would
certainly be objectionable. I was thinking about what my reaction would have
been if my naked son had been being photographed by a stranger when he was
little, and romping in the sand, nekkid as a jaybird. I decided that what I
would have done then was shout “Oi mate, push off”, and probably not thought
much more about it. I certainly wouldn’t have lost any of my sleep,
imagining him afterwards. The advent of the internet and all this ‘child
porn’ talk would probably make me wonder more nowadays, and likely to report
a description of him to the coppers maybe, or perhaps demand myself to see
him erase any images with my son on. That last might depend on how big he
was.

BUT….. none of that applies to Ovenden does it. He was photographing the
children in order to paint up a picture later and they were the children of
people he invited, and who were quite happy for the kids to model.

It seems to me that this ongoing “abuse” farrago we seem to be embroiled
in is all about Consent. Informed consent can only be done by children once
they are over 15 years and 365 days, unless it’s a leap year, in which case
they’ll have to wait one moor day. Children can only be seen and not heard
because they are incapable of knowing their own minds. It’s all getting
rather Victorian again.

Saul June 7, 2013 at 09:45

Immoral and unnatural, and yes that does apply to Ovenden in my
opinion, the same goes for parents allowing this to happen.

Moor Larkin June 7, 2013 at 09:58

That’s cool. Thanks for the answer.

There does seem some strange equivocations in the law-making
fraternity these days. Because of a comment in my blog the other day I
had cause to look up what is defined as “extreme pornography” these days
because “pornography” is okay so long as it is not “extreme”, which
definition seemed to come down to whether creatiung the pornography
could have caused injury or death, but then I noticed the law-makers
were clearly trying to ensure that “some” predilictions were being
catered for. Immoral or unnatural just didn’t seem within the
lexicon
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/
“b)
An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a
person’s anus, breast or genitals; this could include the insertion of
sharp objects (although in some circumstances this can be done in a way
that is not likely to result in serious injury) or the mutilation of
breasts or genitals. It is likely to be difficult to prove that cases of
‘fisting’ involve images that show activity that is likely to result in
serious injury so these cases need to be handled with particular care.
Serious injury is not defined in the Act and should be given its
ordinary dictionary meaning, being a question of fact for the District
Judge or jury.”

Saul
June 7, 2013 at 11:01

Just to define. I haven’t once said it was pornographic.

Bruce Wagner June 7, 2013 at 12:35

I certainly can’t tell you it’s not “immoral” because that’s your own
opinion to which you are entitled. But “unnatural”? I’m not sure where
nature comes into it. Mr. Ovenden didn’t try to reproduce with his
models – he had a wife for that who gave birth to two of his
children….

Moor Larkin June 7, 2013 at 13:09

The ‘unnatural’ bit might be a grown man sharing a bath with a
little girl who was not his daughter. Even sharing it with his
daughter might seem a tad ‘unnatural’. Personally-speaking, having
kids in the bath would feel more embarrassing to me I suspect, than it
would feel to the kids. It used to be said we transferred our own
shame to our offspring.

I can vividly recall ‘covering myself’ when my mother came into the
bathroom to wash my hair, and I could only have been five or six; but
my older brother on the other hand, who was at the tap end never
seemed to bother. I wonder what makes us so different sometimes? My
mother and I have laughed about my behaviour in the years since, and
neither of us can guess what prompted my young brain to react that
way.

Saul
June 7, 2013 at 13:51

I’m sure these young models are pleased that he didn’t try to
reproduce with them.

Anna Raccoon June 7, 2013 at 14:09

Saul, I do understand where you are coming from — but — most
people find their own children utterly charming, naked or not — and
take photographs of them.

Presumably you would see nothing wrong with that?

But consider for a moment; 90% + of child abuse is conducted by
family members, less than 10% by strangers.

Perhaps we should be considering the dangers posed by family
members taking photographs of their children rather than strangers,
even family friend strangers, doing so?

At the moment we are being conditioned to believe that any
picture of a naked child is automatically pornography and thus
abuse, and that simply isn’t so. I have many friends whose houses
used to be decorated with pictures of their children running around
bare arsed naked, on a beach, in a pond, in the bath – suddenly we
are asked to believe that every one of those pictures is ‘immoral’
and unnatural.

I don’t think that is a healthy attitude.

Smoking Hot June 7, 2013 at 14:34

Alas, nudity is not necessary to fall foul of the law … the
image simply has to judged ‘erotic’.

Lucozade June
7, 2013 at 16:56

Anna Raccoon,

Re: “At the moment we are being conditioned to believe that any
picture of a naked child is automatically pornography”

Yet is it not traditionally more shocking to see someone in the
nude after they’ve started puberty?

I can’t help but wonder if that’s one of the reasons Lewis
Carroll only painted children in the nude – because it would seem
a lot more risque to paint a young lady in the nude and children
were a lot less shocking and it would be a lot less embarrassing
for both parties….?

Lucozade
June 7, 2013 at 13:14

Moor Larkin,

Re: “It’s all getting rather Victorian again”

Have you seen some of Lewis Carroll’s efforts?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lewis+carroll+photography&client=ms-android-hms-vf-gb&sa=N&source=android-browser&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=Cs2xUd_CEOPB0QXyr4GIDA&ved=0CCoQsAQ4Cg&biw=360&bih=567

P.s Apparently the one of him kissing Alice is a fake/photo shopped
though….

Moor Larkin June 7, 2013 at 13:16

Necro too??!!! OMG!!! ……………
http://press.princeton.edu/carroll/Southey.jpg

Lucozade
June 7, 2013 at 13:21

Moor Larkin,

Re: “Necro too??!!! OMG!!!
…………… http://press.princeton.edu/carroll/Southey.jpg”

Probably a friend of Jimmy Savile’s….

Moor Larkin June 7, 2013 at 13:29

@lucozade
Oh come on, Jimmy was always older than everyone else,
but there are limits even to his conceiveable life-span…….

rabbitaway
June 7, 2013 at 13:54

@Luco – Moor – Saul – have a look at the comments (from 2000) on
Ovenden’s book – ‘Childhood Streets’

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Graham-Ovenden-Childhood-Martin-Golding/dp/1888425105

Moor Larkin June 7, 2013 at 14:20

@rabbitaway
OMG!!
” From the age of fourteen to the age of
nineteen Ovenden was travelling to the city in aid of taking pictures
of unsuspecting city children. ”
A peeping Tom to boot
!!
Charges pertaining to historical gross invasions of privacy are
now pending. Where will all this end….

Bruce
Wagner June 7, 2013 at 01:07

@Woman on a Raft: If Ms Berry had been molested by anyone, she surely would
have said so. But to date she has only falsely accused Mr. Ovenden, Peter
Blake (she said it to the police in 2006 and at Trafalgar Square, but wrote in
a recent email that she never accused Peter Blake), David Mellor (I believe
she means David Alan Mellor, the art critic), and Mark Hayward-Booth,
ex-curator at the V&A. It’s cliche to speculate that Ms. Berry was the
victim of child molestation because she has mental problems, but even worse to
lay that at the door of “libertines.” I haven’t seen the studies showing
“libertines” (whether of the 60s of any other time) as having a particular
propensity for committing child molestation, but it seems like the good basis
for suspecting people of such. “Oh, you were a libertine back then, were you?
How many children did you rape?”

I would be careful of that (and any other) Daily Mail article. Read
closely, one can see that Ms. Berry’s mother never spoke to the DM. Instead,
the reporter purports to have interviewed an unnamed person who purports to be
a “friend” of Ms. Berry’s mother, and then quoted Mr. Berry’s mother about her
life as a busker – a quote that was on any number of websites long before the
DM ever saw it. It cleverly gave the appearance that the Daily Mail had
actually been in touch with Ms. Berry’s mother, but it was just a cheap trick
of tabloid journalism.

I think you were right about the reason the CPS thought the video would
make her look bad in front of a jury.

Woman on a Raft
June 7, 2013 at 09:01

Re: Mellor, alas, she cannot distinguish one Mellor from another and
became hopelessly confused between them, thinking it was the Mellor who was
allegedly a friend of Mona Bawens, who herself was linked to the PLO. This
caused terrible confusion because Misty Challis can’t decide if that’s
alright as it is a Palestinian organization, or not alright as it is the PLO
rather than Hamas, whom she claims to be in touch with. Obviously, I doubt
that either organization knows of her existence, although George Galloway
might in a vague way as she keeps up with the Respect (Tower Hamlets)
website.

http://towerhamletsrespect.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/back-from-gaza-george-galloway-mp-returns-to-brick-lane-welcome/

It remains plausible, though, that a child born of a single mother of the
London pop scene of the late 60s and 70s is telling the truth when she says
she was a victim of sexual assault. Subsequently she has projected that on
to the one figure she can positively identify, which happens to suit someone
else’s agenda.

As for the sexual habits of the fashionable people of the 1960s – do me a
favour; your argument is strong until you start trying to tell me it was
another Eden. It wasn’t. Rather, Ovenden typifies the middle-brow
intellectual arrogance of the age whereby they want to experiment with
pornography and then gather up their petticoats screaming “How very dare
you” when challenged. Oh do come off it; the cover picture of a man holding
a child assumed to be his daughter assumes an entirely different cast under
the caption “Reflections of Lolita”.

Ovenden’s earlier brush with the law was a cringing ‘Tee hee, I’ve found
a stash of Victorian smut and you can’t tell I’ve faked it” affair. Round
here, they lock antique dealers in their own mock-medieval blanket chests
and chuck them in the Ouse, see if they float, for pulling that kind of
stunt. If he didn’t want to be mistaken for a dirty old man, it might have
helped if he hadn’t spent 50 years behaving like one. Admittedly these
things creep up on you; he was no doubt quite the young Pan half a century
ago but all the “I can see her crack” bit doesn’t look quite so smart now,
does it? Every illustrator from John Lockwood Kipling onwards has managed to
depict the naked Mowgli without alarming the parents. I don’t think any of
them have done less-good pictures for the production decision to avoid
teenage genitalia, although I admit that the public tolerance for male
nudity is higher than for female.

That said, if I could afford the sketch of Justice Leading The Innocents
Away, I would without hesitation. His skill and insight put him in the
leading ranks of classicists although I place him with illustrators rather
than fine artists. Lenkiewicz still beats him as an unflinching observer of
humanity.

Ovenden has had a raw deal out of the justice system because he’s been
convicted on the word of a witness who is not credible as soon as any proper
searches of ‘Misty Challis’ is done. There seems to be little other evidence
against him if they have to resort faking photos from his own rejected
negatives to sway the jury. There’s irony for you.

Woman on a
Raft June 7, 2013 at 09:04

Oops, Minty Challis, not Misty Challis.

Moor Larkin June 7, 2013 at 09:41

Clint Eastwood fan?

Woman on a
Raft June 7, 2013 at 10:25

Freudian slip I think, given the film’s study of obsession and
fantasy.

Bruce
Wagner June 7, 2013 at 12:29

1. I never ‘started to try to tell you it was another Eden.’ Stop
projecting. I said you had no data suggesting that late 60s and 70s pop
scene denizens were more likely to commit child molestation than anyone
else. The idea that Minty Challis “forgot” being molested only to come to
accuse people who never did anything wrong to her flies in the face of
logic. In addition, Minty claims to have never “forgotten” the false
incident.

2. The Hetling affair was not “Victorian smut”. They were photographs
taken by Howard Grey of clothed models, supposedly “waifs.” Ovenden took
the photos and re-photograhed them, then printed them out as salt-prints,
an early technique, following which he passed them (not sold them) to a
dealer. It was a schoolboy stunt. So what?

Woman on a Raft
June 6, 2013 at 23:38

Donna Jane Berry/Minty Miliant Charmer Challis

The Daily Mail (yes I know) did a fuller portrait of her in which she
positively identifies herself as the complainant in this case. There is no
anonymity to break since Donna Jane Berry herself appears to have waived it.
The interview appeared on 22 October 2011. Given the allegations in the
interview – that Challis is a fantasist – seem well-founded, I cannot
understand how the Crown came to rely on her at all, particularly when the
police had to ask her to remove videos in case the defence used them to
discredit her in the eyes of the jury. I note, however, that the Crown has NOT
proceeded on the basis of her allegations about a peer who robustly defended
himself and won a defamation case recently.

I do not rule out that she may have been the victim of sexual assault as a
child. Her mother mixed with libertines of the age, so it is entirely possible
that she was abused by someone which led, as she claims, to her subsequent
mental problems. However, in the context of her claims to have been abducted
by ‘a Rothschild’ and her rampant paranoia over a lizard-based plot, plus her
belief that she’s a valued guest of Hamas and has offered to bomb Israel on
their behalf, it really does not take a consultant psychiatrist to demonstrate
that this lady’s testimony is unreliable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052079/The-fantasist-Dale-Farm-Why-does-mother-gipsy-camp-activist-Minty-say-shes-deluded-self-publicist.html

A measure of how obviously unreliable she is emerged on David Icke’s forum
where her video was examined. As this is Icke’s place we are talking about,
you have to get pretty far off the planet before they tell you to stow it. It
emerges why the Crown wanted that video withdrawn:

I understand child abuse is rife whatever walk of life people come from
but to state the British Army train to rape people is just ridiculous

Chris
Barratt June 6, 2013 at 10:34

Can this tidal wave of absolute corruption and idiocy be fought?
Or
should free-thinking people do the sensible thing and abandon this septic
island for places that still embrace decency, culture, intelligence and aren’t
being used as giant social experiments?

belinus June 6,
2013 at 16:50

yep we kick there eds in.
Anyway…was thinking of invading mi town and
taking over the town hall, then I remembered it is now in the hands of the
private….
I might have to take over the churches instead…any backers?

Moor
Larkin June 6, 2013 at 09:24

@ Are we to believe that Michaelangelo and every other artist that has
portrayed the naked body has worked from imagination, or are they all
paedophiles, taking up art as a career for the titillation of other
paedophiles? @

I make no claim to be an art expert, but I have read someplace that in the
old days, women were not allowed to model nude/at all for painters, so the
painters would use young boys and then embellish from memory [?]. I think this
is also one reason why ancient art so often seems to focus on the fine
musculature of young men, rather than the female form.

Once you know the social moor’s at play, then many things can make much
more sense when looked back at from the present. But who believes in that idea
in an age when history is bunk.

Lucozade June 6, 2013 at 09:40

Moor Larkin,

Re: “in the old days, women were not allowed to model nude/at all for
painters, so the painters would use young boys and then embellish from
memory [?]. I think this is also one reason why ancient art so often seems
to focus on the fine musculature of young men, rather than the female
form”

It’s funny you should say that as the other day I think it crossed my
mind that in older art a lot of the male nudes look more realistic and true
to life than the female ones – and I didn’t know that that might be the
reason – I wondered if it was just that women where a considerably different
shape back then than they are today….

Lucozade June 6, 2013 at 08:59

Re: “Donna El Berry 08 April 2013 9:40am

what is painful for us he abused is this,wile the pics were taken we were
being abused this is hidden as the pics are changed a bit with bright colors
etc,so its like a complex i feel everyone can see me naked,sounds mad but

psychological damage from hes abuse.i wish all the pics of us were removed
not just from the Tate,every day he sells pics of me and the other abused
girls,some for over £.2000

MAKES ME SICK WILE I HAD A DISTURBED LIFE FROM HIM AND HES SICK FANTICS I
LIVED ON THE STREETS ETC, never able to reach my full potential staved for
many years etc he feeds of my pics. for 30 years i was called a lier etc
bullied to the point of suicide.now i can slowly start my life ,shame is im 47
and not eating cos of hes sick food games and abuse i have not much left of me
to have a life,i dedicated my life to proving hes a abuser and abused us,its
took me 40 years of demos riots and complete press harassment and lies written
about me,the papers all called me a lier last year now they are all jumping on
the band wagon, not one of them has apologized,im more damaged by the c.p.s.
and people calling me a lier and the proceeder of getting him to court than
the abuse now,love to all,always protect you kids as abuse damage is life
long,peace.” (sic!)”

How awful is her spelling…?

Anna
Raccoon June 6, 2013 at 11:58

“How awful is her spelling…?”

Trauma does that to you Lucozade, that and makes you unable to pay your
BBC licence and all manner of things……

Saul June 6, 2013 at 08:56

“What do you know of the trial of the artist Graham Ovenden?”

Well, until I read this nothing at all. Now, let me get this right, this is
an adult male who likes to take pictures of naked 8yr old girls. He says it is
art, the police beg to differ. He has been found guilty in a court of law.

The one thing that strikes me, is where were the parents of the 8yr old
model in question? What kind of mother and Father would agree to letting
someone take naked posed pictures of their daughter? Call me old fashioned,
but this cannot be described as normal behaviour.

Anna
Raccoon June 6, 2013 at 12:02

The parents were fellow artists and long standing friends of Ovenden.
Life models are usual for artists. Taking photographs negates the need for
the model to stand for hours on end – and if you look at the photograph of
Maud, you will see that one nipple was exposed – ala the picture of blind
justice that he was trying to emulate. That is the picture that the US
authorities were trying to judge obscene.

Saul June 6, 2013 at 12:21

Whether they were friends or not, there is no way I would allow my
daughter to pose naked for photographs at such a young age. Life models
may be the norm for artists, but certainly not at 8 yrs old.

Chris
Barratt June 6, 2013 at 13:18

This is because you are conditioned – both to equate nudity with
arousing pornography, and to assume people find innocent children in
their natural naked state erotic and arousing.
How do you think
humanity evolved this far if every adult male is supposedly a menace to
any and every naked child?
We are also conditioned to believed this
subject is closed and ‘undiscussable’ – where is this leading? Complete
state control of the child and it’s family.

Saul
June 6, 2013 at 13:34

You don’t know me therefore you cannot say If I am conditioned or
not. I am not saying it is pornographic, merely that it is morally
wrong.

Moor Larkin June 6, 2013 at 14:25

What is morally wrong? That they are naked? That they are seen
naked by someone other than you? Or anyone at all including you? Or
just that a permanent image is made of their nakedness? I recall when
I was about eight or so I had some friends in the street and their
parents were, I think, teachers. I vividly recall they had large arty
self-taken photographs of their children on their lounge walls, naked
on the seashore – black and white enlargements in frames. They must
have been quite expensive to get printed in those days or maybe the
parents did their own developing. One of the subjects was my friend
and the other his sister. I recall thinking it was unusual. That was
in about 1965 or so.

This business with images seems to be a police-created linkage
since they discovered internet images. Was it Operation Ore or
something? Now it seems that there is a default assumption that any
such images will find their way onto the internet and feed the abuse
industry (if there is such a thing which seems doubtful).

In this respect there’s an interesting comment from a Twitcher
here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveyboy_75/4618124217/
“Birds
of prey like this are not easy to get pictures of. I was stunned
travelling back from Shropshire to see a pair of Red Kites flying low
above the car park of Oxford Services on the M40. Taken 4th May
2010.
What made me angry was the police came over and questioned me
what I was taking pictures…! When I told them they thought I was
joking till I showed them this shot. They told me the reason they
questioned me was for security and I might of been taking pictures of
peoples children…! DISCUSTING…! They should do there job serious and
not waste time.”

Lucozade
June 6, 2013 at 16:07

Chris Barratt,

Re: “This is because you are conditioned –both to equate nudity
with arousing pornography, and to assume people find innocent children
in their natural naked state erotic and arousing. How do you think
humanity evolved this far if every adult male is supposedly a menace
to any and every naked child? We are also conditioned to believed this
subject is closed and ‘undiscussable’ – where is this leading?
Complete state control of the child and it’s family”

Good answer Chris I liked that. If we were ment to ware clothes
we’d be born with them attached to our body. And they don’t seem to
give a shit in Germany, lol….

Moor Larkin June 6, 2013 at 16:20

@ they don’t seem to give a shit in Germany, lol @

They’re tightening the reins there too, it seems; keeping their
citizens on a shorter leash………
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20130201-47711.html

Fascinating to see how the gay agenda of genetic predisposition has
been taken up by these folk as well:
“We cannot do anything about
being zoophiles, and so are trying handling our inclinations
responsibly,”

Lucozade
June 6, 2013 at 16:41

Moor Larkin

Re: “As Germany tightened its laws against having sex with animals,
zoophile advocates gathered in central Berlin on Friday to fight for
their right to choose who, or what, they love”

All four of them? lol

JoBlow
June 8, 2013 at 16:22

How scary your posts are.
You have concluded based purely upon
what you have read here and not even bothered researching the
man.
You frighten me but are probably in the majority,
A cold
shiver has run up my spine : not unlike when I went to a psychic once
and she said I was a woman in one life time and been burnt at the stake
as a witch. Her cat fled from the room and she said that was proof.

JoBlow
June 8, 2013 at 16:28

Operation Ore was one of Britain’s greatest miscarriages of justice
and exposed by Duncan Campbell who also gave evidence in the House Of
Lords.
I think you can trace all the hysteria up to now back to
2002 when it happened. Dozens of innocent people committed suicide and
the evidence was flawed but hideous coppers (not unlike MWT) made
their careers on Ore. These are very evil people who do indeed try to
convince an innocent child she is an object of pornography. I cannot
imagine what twisted minds they have but I think we are entering a new
bizarre Puritan era and there will be countless victims to come.

Lucozade June 6, 2013 at 05:44

Anna Raccoon,

Re: “The Police in Britain were unwilling to accept that Maud knew her own
mind; surely she must be in denial, needed help to understand that a naked
eight year old is an obscene sight, something no one could look on with
anything other than sheer deviant lust”

That line cracked me up, lol….

carol42 June 5, 2013 at 22:40

I know someone who wrote one of these misery books, sort of distant
relative, I also know the whole story was nonsense. The entire closer members
of the family told her in no uncertain terms that if she mentioned any of them
they would denounce her and bring up her very disturbed history so she stuck
to accusing her dead mum and dad. They were not perfect by any means and had
adopted her as a baby but they did not abuse her in any way as her also
adopted sister confirmed and my aunt, the mother’s sister, lived very near and
the kids were in and out all the time. She was always making up fantasic
stories even as a small child. Don’t believe everything you read but then none
of here do!

belinus June 5,
2013 at 21:20

I have witnessed a few of these games whereby a celebrity is arrested or
appears for no apparent reason to flee to France, only to make a miraculous
turn of fate.
One was a Matthew from one of those Saturday night prank
shows, another was guitar legend Townsend, and then this.
Is it not fair to
examine a possible offer of agreement to serve the corporate once compromised,
say no and you go to jail, say yes and it all goes away.
I am sure Townsend
and his crew played the Olympics and would be a necessary inclusion, the one
that fled to France became all Mind and is all over the TV showing off a clear
case of photographic memory, a known consequence of early abuse…..
Mmmm

Moor
Larkin June 6, 2013 at 09:43

@belinus
The Ovenden verdict seems to have surprised Ovenden too,
because it seemed not match Judge Cottle’s rhetoric. It crosses my mind that
the UK legal people recognise how dodgy some of this recovered memory stuff
is, that is appearing in court-rooms these days, but the DPP/CPS is
determined to “give victims a voice”, so we get these verdicts to validate
the victims, but sentences that are not so draconian that the judges cannot
sleep at night knowing the injustices they are perpetrating.

The Stuart Hall sentence will be even more interesting to witness……

Mina Field
June 6, 2013 at 13:09

The Ovenden Sentence.

Barbara Hewson might have explained it in just one short tweet. She
said, ‘the judge ‘gets it’, you can’t sentence the past by present
values’.

Moor Larkin June 6, 2013 at 13:29

@ Mina Field
She’s just avoiding the issue. The John Thomas thing
in the bath was no more legal then than it is now, and if he’s done it
then he would have had a much more severe sentence than suspended. If
it’s true he should be punished. If it’s not true he should be found not
guilty.

Mina
Field June 6, 2013 at 17:24

@Moor Larkin

The judge’s remarks re the offence date and the law at the time of
the offence.

“The judge said one of the offences Ovenden was convicted of –
asking a girl to touch him while they were in a bath together – could
today be treated as inciting a child to engage in a sexual act,
carrying a 14-year maximum jail sentence.

But the judge said he had to take into account the sentencing
regime in place at the time of the offences, between 25 and 40 years
ago, before newer laws to protect children were brought in.:-”

Moor Larkin June 6, 2013 at 17:59

@Mina Field
This one presumably?
@ The Act came into force on
2 July 1960, and Section 1 made it an offence to commit or incite an
“act of gross indecency” with somebody under the age of fourteen. The
infractor was liable to imprisonment for up to two years on conviction
after indictment, and six months or a fine of £100 for a summary
conviction @

Bruce Wagner June 6, 2013 at 18:25

I agree, Moor. The conviction for that charge came only after Judge
Cottle tired of waiting around (he had another trial to conduct) and
told the jury they could convict by a vote of 10-2. That they did. But
when the witness told the story in court, she testified that she only
“remembered” Mr. Ovenden’s penis being erect years later when she was
driving her car on the motorway and had a “sudden revelation.” Also,
when her mother was called to the stand to “corroborate” the witness
having told the mother of the alleged incident when she was around 15,
the mother told a totally different account that did not include her
daughter touching or washing Mr. Ovenden’s “John Thomas.” Mr.
Ovenden’s QC apparently missed that discrepancy, since it was not in
his summation. But it is likely that Judge Cottle heard it. Since the
same witness’s story about being blindfolded and subjected to the
infamous “taste test” was disbelieved by the jury, Judge Cottle must
have wondered why the jury bothered convicting on the bath charge.

Mina
Field June 6, 2013 at 20:27

@Moor Larkin 17:54

No, I don’t think it was that offence, as there seems to be a
requirement to prove the defendant was masturbating or similarly
showing gratification, and that the victim knew AND that the defendant
KNEW that the victim knew and derived gratification from the fact.

Sorry, I’ve probably not recounted that very clearly, but never
mind, I just think it must have been a different and less serious
offence with which he was prosecuted under than this one.

belinus June
6, 2013 at 16:47

Good points larky, you must be a northerner??

Pogle June 5, 2013 at 19:27

The effort which the authorities directed to pursuing this case seems
inversely proportional to that directed to investigating the real, wide scale
abuse occurring in Rochdale, Oxford and many other large towns.
Whatever
can the difference be ?

Woman on a Raft
June 6, 2013 at 08:31

^^^^THIS^^^^

Lucozade June 6, 2013 at 11:52

Pogle,

Re: “Whatever can the difference be ?”

Easier to solve fake ‘crime’? Don’t want to stir up public bad feeling
about Muslims/certain immigrants. Propaganda again?

Moor
Larkin June 5, 2013 at 18:50

Just occurred to me on the way home that it’s about time the UK followed
the route that I believe has been adopted in Australia, and bans Misery
Literature, which reputedly usually includes graphic literary descriptions of
small children being sexually interfered with.

I have only read a bit of one. That was authored by someone called
Keri-Karin and is in ebook format. After enduring some unpleasant descriptions
of what her mother did to her, I then reached the part where a step-father
began to do things I no longer wished to read about, and I jumped to a section
where some celebrity called JS did practically nothing. Then I stopped reading
it. Last time I passed through WH Smith their shelves seemed to be groaning
with this sort of filth.

Ovenden’s sometimes serene pictures of childhood innocence generally seemed
almost therapeutic by comparison, but at the end of the day I’d prefer to get
lost in a John Constable.

charlotte June 5, 2013 at 19:33

I though I was the only person who found ‘victim’ literature sickening.
The number of women who seem enthralled by this so called factual reading is
staggering. I always comment. ‘You don’t believe that stuff surely’ only to
be told that they do because if it wasn’t true the ‘book’ people wouldn’t
dare print it! I remember reading a serialisation of a so called abuse,
victim, misery story in The Mail. If I recall it was the story of a black
women who, against all the odds had become a successful barrister even
though her mother had mistreated her. The book went on sale and did rather
well I believe. The mother took her successful daughter to court citing that
it was all lies and the successful daughter’s siblings backed their mother
saying that they had a good childhood etc. Then the whole thing about the
MP, Hoon and his wife and the speeding points thing earlier this year came
about. I thought I read that Mrs Hoon’s neighbour who I think denied tipping
off the press and was then found to have lied was the successful daughter.
But as I’m not much of a researcher as you and Anna and other bloggers are,
I may be wrong. However the barrister now elevated to a judge was involved
in the situation. If this woman who was a barrister lied somewhere over the
Hoon case then how can we believe the allegations of child abuse in her so
called ‘poor me’ book? As you are so good at getting to the bottom of stuff
perhaps you could let me know if I’m correct?

Moor Larkin June 6, 2013 at 07:57

@charlotte
The barrister’s mother lost her house in order to pay the
costs of her failed libel action against the daughter. I have no in-depth
knowledge of that particular matter and have no intention of getting it,
but one thing did strike me at the time of Hoon (when it first came to my
notice) was the fact that the girl/woman came from a numerous family, so I
wonder what they all had to say in the court-room, and if it was not all
true how did the mother come to lose her home, and why did she bother
suing over some silly book anyway – some misplaced sense of her honour
being impugned?. I was fascinated to notice yesterday that in the ongoing
Lancel case (an ex-Corrie actor) the mother of a complainant appeared but
as reported seemed to indicate the defendant had given her no cause for
concern when he had been around her son. God knows what it all means, but
carol42 has indicated how the embarrassed silence of the majority
works.

charlotte
June 6, 2013 at 21:12

Thank you Moor. I think the answer is not to take any thing at face
value. Since reading Anna’s blog I’ve learned not to do that and admire
those here who question and dig for the facts in a clinical and often
amusing fashion.

Smoking Hot June
5, 2013 at 22:40

Banning Misery Literature? l would’ve thought more legislation is the
last thing anyone wants.

Moor Larkin June 6, 2013 at 08:00

@Smoking Hot
The last thing the child abuse lawyers want I imagine.
It’s stoking the fires very nicely, from what I can see, browsing the
internet review spaces.
This is a good case study from 2008: http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/hermann-kelly/mis-lit-05mar08.php

Lucozade
June 6, 2013 at 11:40

Smoking Hot,

Re: “Banning Misery Literature? l would’ve thought more legislation is
the last thing anyone wants”

Well it’s often just as ‘obsene’ as say, lady Chaterrley’s lover, and
if some of it them don’t even have their basis in truth then it would
indicate that those ones must simply be the work of some disturbed
people’s imagiations. And the motive is either entertainment, profit, or
their own warped titillation….

JoBlow June 8, 2013 at 16:14

It is an offense and considered ‘child pornography ‘ to write tales of
children involved in sex in Australia so you are correct.

From memory, that great gift to the world from the Land of the Boomerang
: Rupert Murdoch who profited form what are now illicit under 18 Page Three
topless snaps , and who also publishes his beloved Sun newspaper, had a
drama about 4/5 years ago over the supposed “youngest father in Britain” who
was a lad of 13 or 14 and The Sun proposed to purchase his ‘life’ story
until a learned barrister pointed out that buying the story of underage sex
and publishing it for profit could be breaching a few laws.

Perhaps this ‘misery’ stuff already breaks the law but how can you prove
it is fiction ?

Lucozade
June 8, 2013 at 22:41

Jo Blow,

Re: “Perhaps this ‘misery’ stuff already breaks the law but how can you
prove it is fiction ?”

Lie detector? By investigating to see if their can be any truth to the
stories? Some lies are easier to find out than others….

Kingbingo June 5, 2013 at 18:31

We do seem to have reached a stage where it is irrelevant if there is any
actual victim or not. What truly matters is if the establishment orthodoxy has
been challenged and that the ruleset is adhered to.

“The accusation that the image is “obscene” is, to me, an accusation that I
am “obscene,” something to which I take offence”

Too bloody right! It seems that just because someone could get a thrill out
of an image it must automatically be obscene, regardless if any harm was ever
done to anyone anywhere.

A brilliant case in point is a girl in Denver: http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_12006602 who was
arrested charged and could face 17 years prison for making and distributing
child pornography. She is a 14 year old girl that took pictures of herself in
the mirror then sent them to her boyfriend.

Yet the orthodoxy has ruled that ANYONE making and distributing ANY images
of nude children is automatically vile scum who must be smacked down with the
full force of the law, regardless of the circumstances.

And what was the original purpose of this ho-ha in the first place? Well it
was to protect children.

So let me get this right, the state is going to protect this girl from
…..herself…..and the way the state is going to ‘protect’ this girl is to
arrest her, scare the living daylights out of her and threaten her with a jail
sentences longer than her own short life so far. All in the name of protecting
her.

Now obviously as a libertarian I am a mental deviant. But as far as I can
see the entirety of the ‘harm’ being done here is from the state. I would
venture that none of the state employees involved in this process are going to
volunteer for 17 years jail for the harm they have done. Why because for the
typical bureaucrat what is ALL IMPORTANT is following the rules. The purpose
behind those rules is completely lost. Its why they press on with terrorising
this girl when it is obviously absurd.

JoBlow June 8, 2013 at 16:05

There are just hundreds of cases in the USA of convicted ‘sex offenders”
who were teens ‘sexting’ each other snaps. They become life time offenders
on those ghastly US websites and become barred from living in certain areas
even though many go on to marry and have a family.
These perverted
politicians and police- for that is what they are- treat these teens as both
‘victim’ and ‘offender’ at the same time.

Perhaps Icke’s reptiles really are responsible for how ghastly the world
is becoming. let’s face it, any self respecting Alien from a distant gallexy
must cruise by, look down and put the foot on the accelerator when they
witness what we do to each other.

JuliaM June 5,
2013 at 17:52

“Basically [they said] I had been brainwashed, you know?”

Do, the Met fancy themselves as ‘deprogrammers’, do they? Gawd, this has
shades of the debacle surrounding the Wimbledon Common killing all over
again…

Radical Rodent
June 5, 2013 at 17:38

I suspect this is another step on the road to demonising all photographs of
children (unless by “approved” persons), and, ultimately, anyone else. This is
why parents now are asked to register their desire to take snaps during
sports-day, the school play, etc. The BBC happily plays along, with suitably
fuzzy images in the school playground; the irony of then interviewing the same
children in glorious and clear close-up seems to be lost on them.

It is one more nail in the coffin of freedom, as we are all to become
criminals of some type or other. I am sure a writer has explored this
avenue…

JoBlow June 8, 2013 at 15:59

Many years ago-having been a professional photographer at various times-
I was sent by the dole crowd to apply fro a job snapping children at school,
‘pixie’ photos in a shopping center , Father Xmas snaps (kids on his lap)
and so on.
I firmly refused after being interviewed and returned to the
dole office. It resulted in me losing benefits for a time but never
regretted for an instance as I made it a rule to never ever be in the
position to photograph children under any circumstances.
I think I
anticipated this new age by at least 20 years.

Mewsical June 5,
2013 at 17:11

Next up will be the artist who created the Led Zeppelin album cover for
Houses of the Holy – except he died recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_of_the_Holy

Moor
Larkin June 5, 2013 at 17:19

@ except he died recently @

Perfect target then…………….

Lucozade June 5, 2013 at 22:27

Mewsical,

Re: “Next up will be the artist who created the Led Zeppelin album cover
for Houses of the Holy – except he died recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_of_the_Holy”

Died recently? Even better!

They should take a look into the people who designed the Pampers
packaging and adverts too…

Bruce
Wagner June 6, 2013 at 00:59

Indeed, the girl on the cover of the Houses of the Holy is Samantha
Gates, who was also photographed by Graham Ovenden (and appears in States of
Grace, among other places). She was also photographed by a Japanese
photographer by the name of Sawatari. It really smacks of conspiracy by
reptilian paedophile Satanists, if not the Illuminati. Just read David Icke
if you don’t believe me! (Tongue firmly in cheek.)

Woman on a Raft
June 5, 2013 at 16:21

Ovenden did a spot of faking in the late 1970s; he was acquitted of fraud
as the issue was more one of him showing up the experts by the creation of a
fake photographer and his antique works. Is somebody still harbouring a
grudge?

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/francis_hetlings_victorian_waifs/

There is a distinction between creating faux Victoriana and then selling it
as the real thing. Still, I wasn’t there. Is something else motivating this
prosecution which is obviously going to be examined in the professional
press?

JuliaM June 5,
2013 at 17:53

Examined in the professional press? On which planet? Because I’ve a
feeling it’s not this one!

Woman on a
Raft June 5, 2013 at 18:29

The bloggers such as this one, and those linked by Anna, will feed back
in to the professional art criticism circles. WARNING This blog reproduces
some of the disputed images. I have no problem with any of them but if you
work in a school or similar, the link could be used to discredit you.

http://pigtailsinpaint.com/?p=987

Remember we are talking about big money here. Despite the controversy,
my eye tells me that the value of his paintings and sketches can only go
up because they are good, which is an improvement on some of the rubbish
you get in modern galleries. For the moment, if the Tate clears out even
its controversial photographs the price will drop, which is a snip for
collectors who can hold them if they don’t mind the interim risk of plod
claiming these are indecent images.

The story will also run because of the family angle; the family running
up credit and then forcing the sale of the estate, then apparently
encouraging the complaints speaks of some other motive. If Ovenden has any
sense he’ll be getting his will in order and leaving the remainder to the
cats’ home (or similar) and let them argue that thousands of pounds worth
of art should be destroyed. The story is not over.

Bruce Wagner June 6, 2013 at 00:54

Pigtails in Paint does NOT reproduced any disputed images. There were
only 3 disputed images in the case. 2 of Maud Hewes and 1 of an unnamed
witness. The 2 of Maud Hewes were never published by Mr. Ovenden and in
fact never even printed by him. They were printed by the police, and in
such a manner as to emphasise the genitalia. (Maud Hewes spoke about the
propensity of the police to crop and show in 1997, so we know what the
police do here.) The third image (of the unnamed witness) was printed by
Mr. Ovenden but never shown publicly. Mr. Ovenden has described the
images to me, but since they don’t depict sex, I’m not particularly
worried about them. Both models supported the images of themselves well
into their 20s.

Woman on a
Raft June 6, 2013 at 02:39

A thousand apologies, I should have said ‘controversial’ rather
than ‘disputed’. That was sloppy of me. I meant it in general rather
than the specific sense. None the less, the warning has to be issued
so that people can make their own decisions about the risk of a trace
of images on their computer. Any teacher, for example, might find
their computer confiscated in a separate investigation and if those
images pop up then regardless of the sense of it, the person could
find the act of looking at images made by a convicted sex offender is
used against them.

I absolutely share your outrage and thank you for the painstaking
and illuminating analysis, but people have to make their own mind up
about the risks they want to run as the conviction stands, for the
moment.

Saul June 5, 2013 at 16:09

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22782376

Mudplugger June 5, 2013 at 14:06

Whenever anyone makes an image of another person, there are three ‘agents’
involved in the process – the artist/photographer, the model, and anyone later
viewing the finished image.
The current witch-hunt is attempting to ascribe
motivations to each of those ‘agents’ after the event. Was the image-creator
motivated by lust for the model ? Was the model an exhibitionist or being
abused/forced into posing ? Was the viewer examining the image for sexual
gratification purposes ?
I don’t doubt that there are cases where ‘Yes’
could be the answer to some or all of those questions but, in the absence of
clear evidence, it becomes merely topical psycho-speculation.
I could take
a photograph of a naked child and feel pleased with the quality of the final
image, I could also look at someone else’s photo of a naked child and admire
the composition and presentation of the end product. I may also form a view as
to the ugliness or otherwise of the subject. But that would be no different if
the photo was of a duck or a house or a car – it’s just an image. I am
resolutely not of a paedophile presuasion, so can separate the simple image
from any sexual appeal. Trouble is, nowadays, I can’t prove that and, faced
with a tabloid-fuelled paedo-storm, how many of us could feel safe in
verifying our innocence ?
I do not know Graham Ovenden and cannot speak for
his own motivations, but it appears that others are just a little too
enthusiastic to ascribe to him some popular label for which real evidence
seems somewhat lacking. Until that is forthcoming, he remains innocent in my
view.

Moor
Larkin June 5, 2013 at 14:24

@mudplugger
The most serious charges he has been convicted of were
nothing to do with images.
JB in the bath and four years later grasped
from behind.

Smoking Hot June 5, 2013 at 16:34

That as maybe Moor but the way images are used in these prosecutions
are cause for concern. l believe we have the most draconian laws
pertaining to “child pornography” within the EU, is that correct? That
being the case, any images that are judged to be “child pornography”
reflect on other accusations … especially in the eyes of the jury.

The way this country has gone absolutely terrifies me … and l don’t
scare easily.Anna says dont photograph your children in the bath. l’m
afraid it’s a bit late for that … how many of us have done that with our
kids? Or indeed let them run naked on the foreign sunny beaches … and
taken photos! l know we did and so did the friends we were with regarding
their own kids. Where these photos are now is anyone’s guess. Probably in
a little cardboard box in the attic … all sat there sweet and innocent but
perfectly capable of transforming themselves into a Frankenstein monster
that will destroy your life when in the hands of the Witchfinder
General.

Then there is the computer of course. l have just ‘infected’ this
computer in the University by Google searching for Ovenden … up pops
amongst the results his nude child images!

l certainly won’t be surprised when we see the first blind person
convicted for possessing indecent images of children on their
computer.

Moor Larkin June 5, 2013 at 16:43

@Smoking Hot
The point is that if we are always to believe the
accusers, just because they accuse, then photo’s will be the least of
your worries.

Peter Saunders claims there are one billion child abuse victims. I’ll
let you do the math as to how many paedo’s there must therefore be. Nick
Davies was claiming there were a million paedo’s in Britain back in the
late Nineties. Saunders will add a nought or two I imagine.

“This vast scale appears to be confirmed by “prevalance studies”
which take samples of the population and establish how many were
childhood victims of sexual abuse. In the UK, the United States,
Germany, Switzerland and Australia, studies consistently find that
around 20% of women and around 8% of men suffered sexual abuse as
children. In the current population of UK children, that would cover 1.5
million girls and 520,000 boys, a figure that is consistent with the
projection of 1.1 million offenders.”
http://www.nickdavies.net/1998/04/01/the-sheer-scale-of-child-sexual-abuse-in-britain/

Smoking Hot June 5, 2013 at 17:44

As it stands the accusers side remain ‘if’ unless one is deceased.
Images are not ‘if’ … they ‘are’!

The upcoming celebrity abuse cases will be interesting.

JoBlow
June 8, 2013 at 15:49

They even pervert the word ‘abuse’ into one implying only sexual
abuse and ignore the fact all studies show that sexual abuse is around
17% of abuse cases – the rest is physical. mental and by neglect and I
would venture that persistent abuse of the other forms (where sexual
may be one or two isolated incidents) would be far more damaging long
term.

Spiked has an excellent article on the questionaires sent out by
the NSPCC to obtain their figures : they include questions like “do
you feel ignored or sad when your parents do not grant your request
(ie: to stay up late and watch TV)” and so on..actualy real abuse is a
fraction of the questions and thus we get…”one in 6″ or “one in 4″ and
a “billion pedos” etc etc.

What are the chances Minty Challis was dragged into Savile’s
caravan parked in the (very hard to find) car park at Broadcasting
House ?.

Lucozade
June 6, 2013 at 10:12

Smoking Hot,

Re: “The way this country has gone absolutely terrifies me … and l
don’t scare easily.Anna says dont photograph your children in the bath.
l’m afraid it’s a bit late for that … how many of us have done that with
our kids? Or indeed let them run naked on the foreign sunny beaches …
and taken photos! l know we did and so did the friends we were with
regarding their own kids. Where these photos are now is anyone’s guess.
Probably in a little cardboard box in the attic … all sat there sweet
and innocent but perfectly capable of transforming themselves into a
Frankenstein monster that will destroy your life when in the hands of
the Witchfinder General”

There are quite a few photographs of me in my birthday suit as a baby
and toddler at my mum’s house, it’s a ridiculous notion to me that
anyone who has seen them could have found them remotely titalating, and
i’d have to question the mind of anybody that might suggest that there
is a serious risk that they could be to a substantial number of
people.

It was fairly commen for a long time for some kids to go skinny
dipping on the beach in summer and a lot more common to do it in their
underwear if they had no swimming costume. I can see us going back to
the old Victorian swimming suits before too long for kids and adults.
For kids to protect them from adults perving on them obviously, and for
adults, to spare kids the trauma of having to see them without being
compeletly covered, lol….

Only about 3 years ago in Prague I seen a 2 or 3 year old being
carried around a cathedral totally naked, and said to my mum at the
time, if that happend in Britain I bet someone would report it to social
services, I never noticed anyone bat an eyelid (but us)….

Moor
Larkin June 5, 2013 at 12:57

I noted the prosecution barrister was one Ramsey Quaife. He’s a bit of a
lad by the sounds of this!

“A LAWYER was cleared yesterday of stabbing her barrister boyfriend in the
bottom with a cheese knife during a drunken row. Single mum Elaine Hobson, 50,
was suspended from her job with the Crown Prosecution Service after the
incident. Her lover, Ramsay Quaife, 34, suffered small cuts to his buttock and
leg. Their fight was taped by ambulance operators after Quaife rang them and
left the phone off the hook. He was heard saying: “What did you stick into
me?” He also accused her of trying to kill him. Hobson, from Probus, near
Truro, Cornwall, was arrested but her lover refused to press charges. The pair
are still together.” She denied causing grievous bodily harm and was cleared
after a judge at Taunton crown court said a trial was not in the public
interest.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/barrister-stab-mum-is-cleared-549279#ixzz2VHcbWdLx

No photographs exist, perhaps Mr. Oveden could paint a picture for us……………

Anna
Raccoon June 5, 2013 at 13:13

Superb find Moor! Well done.

Duncan Disorderly
June 5, 2013 at 12:53

“The mode of questioning was more like interrogation than anything else –
very manipulative, full of leading questions and in Joseph’s case they used
both veiled and open threats…”

I find the above more disturbing than anything else about the Ovenden
trial, assuming it is substantially true. It’s as though the police are not
capable of learning from the past. They will do everything in their power to
Get Their Man.

Anna
Raccoon June 5, 2013 at 13:13

That and the bit about “But he was actually looking at images of myself
when he was saying that: “Do you not think this is pornography? Look at this
and this and this: is it not pornography?” And it’s a picture of ME!.”

I really felt for the girl then.

Rocky Raccoon (no
relation) June 8, 2013 at 08:38

Is the problem that the CPS is a state funded organisation that seeks to
prosecute people and have them convicted of a crime based on evidence
provided by a state funded organisation called the police. Would not this
lead the police to concentrate looking for evidence for a prosecution rather
than the truth?

Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS North West, said
yesterday:
“We have been reviewing evidence and providing early
investigative advice to Lancashire Police regarding these allegations…”

Elena ‘andcart
June 5, 2013 at 12:14

There isn’t much else one can say about this whole farce, is there. Except
perhaps, “Where is it leading?” It must be going somewhere. I just can’t see
where at the moment.
I could get very angry about this, but I mustn’t as I
might be consumed by rage. And that won’t help anyone. So I shall just have to
go on making enemies by expressing my opinions when the opportunity
arises.

Ted Treen June 7, 2013 at 12:35

My concern too:- the whole Ovenden saga of apparent persecution leads one
to assume there must be a hidden agenda somewhere.

But where? What? and most importantly “Why?”

rabbitaway June 5, 2013 at 11:23

@Anna – I love the following exchange between Ovenden and the BBC reporter
on the steps of the court – GO GRAHAM

START

BBC: “Isn’t it just time to be honest and straight and true and say “I’m
sorry”?”

Graham Ovenden: “No, isn’t it about time that the media started being
honest and straight and true and stopped this mindless witch hunt which is
going on at the moment.”

BBC: “What have we done wrong in reporting a jury’s verdict against
you?”

Graham Ovenden: “Well, in regards to jury verdicts, I mean, are you so
naïve as to think that in a jury, that in fact, truth always lies?”

BBC: “So everybody is wrong apart from you.”

Graham Ovenden: “Well, since I’m about twenty times more intelligent than
most people, I think that would be a very reasonable assumption.”5

END

FROM BRUCE WAGNER’S SITE (YOUR LINK)

Lucozade June 6, 2013 at 07:57

rabbitaway,

Re:”Graham Ovenden: “Well, since I’m about twenty times more intelligent
than most people, I think that would be a very reasonable assumption.” ”

Good answer, lol, it sounds cocky, but in this instance he is probably
right.

Unfortunately a lot of the time the jury don’t get to see all the
evidence, and often neither the defendant or prosecution gets much chance to
put their point foward fully, and it was more or less her word against his
regarding the ‘JB’ incidents, I don’t know that anybody that doesn’t have a
direct involvement can be entirely sure those events happend or not, even
the Jury – and why if this thing against him had been going on since 1993,
were those allegations only made recently.

It’s good to see someone standing upto the annoying vultures anyway, they
mostly do not deserve respect….

And as for “so everybody is wrong apart from you”, well if he is supposed
to have committed all these offences then he’d surely know about it wouldn’t
he? Who is in a better position to know whether they all happend or not but
HIM?, lol

And if these people see pictures of eight year olds naked as sexy or
likey to arouse lust in people, then what does that say about how their
disturbed minds work?

How many baby photo albums that no one else ever batted an eye at would
these types also deem as ‘pornography’?