graham ovenden sentencing and lord mcalpine

jingl the point that when is making is that the abuse is perpetuated by the very existence of these pictures. I know someone who initially dealt with it well when the abuse she suffered in childhood was first exposed, but became overwhelmed when she realised that the photographic evidence was 'out there' and could not be recalled. She was distraught by the thought that anyone could access photo's of her at a time of her complete misery and humiliation and find it enjoyable.

If anyone feels they are not up to an adult discussion, they should get off the bloody thread.

Pitiable!

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

The pictures have hung in galleries since the seventies FGS! I would think the people concerned would have accepted this by now.

There are far too many personal feelings brought into this forum by small minded elderly ex professionals.

Professional??? How dare you!

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Probably better, Jingle. I escaped grammar school with one O' level!

Although, my empathy for the victims of child sexual abuse is a bit more developed than yours seems to be.

Are we talking about victims of child sexual abuse. I would have thought a discussion would have explored that question.

j08, petallus couldn't agree more. This overwhelming political correctness practiced by some is tiresome. Hard to believe we are all grown women. I guess the tendency to lecture doesn't die after retirement. Hey ho.

On the one hand, you have pictures of children which are unmistakably pornographic (and I'm glad to say, I've never seen any) and on the other hand, you have pictures which make us feel uneasy. Because of what we now know about paedophilia? There are a few photos in our many albums, some dating back to the 1920s, which I am convinced were taken innocently but which I don't think would be taken today. The classic naked baby on the rug springs to mind, and the playing in the garden or on the beach with very few or no clothes on. A number of early photographers, not just Lewis Carroll, took photographs of children in poses, costume and partly dressed. I don't think it's entirely clear cut.

Sel can you honestly answer this question, please? How would you feel if the images that keep showing up were pictures of your own children or grandchildren?

I know I would not have had my children painted in the nude, and I guess you would be unlikely to, either, but can you put yourself in the shoes of those parents who did?

Good point Lilygran and precisely why it would have been pertinent to this discussion.

when how can we know if we can't see the facts for ourselves? I presume these pictures were not blatantly pornographic given that they had been in the Tate. As Lilygran says things were different in the past and I personally do have lots of pictures of my children in the bath, in the garden in the nude. Also, lots of old family photos of babies on fur rugs. A more innocent world.

There is nothing wrong with photos of baby on the rug, or kids in the bath having a great time, nor is there anything wrong with dads enjoying bath time with their children. It's tragic that people have started to think twice about what they are doing in all innocence, as loving, protective parents.

There is a world of difference, though, when paedophiles engineer opportunities to abuse children, record images of how and when they have abused, and flood the market with images of real children, who can't get all those photos and paintings back.

Insulting people who have worked with victims and perpetrators of child sexual abuse, and witnessed the never-ending impact of lives ruined and families torn apart, is below the belt.

I would point out to GNHQ that the pictures were removed voluntarily from the Tate. They have not of themselves been condemned as paedophilia.

I have been accused by Gransnet of posting paedophilia material online. Maybe I should get a solicitor involved.

when

Quote: "Insulting people who have worked with victims and perpetrators of child sexual abuse, and witnessed the never-ending impact of lives ruined and families torn apart, is below the belt."

Do you mean me? If so, when?

Accused in effect that is

My goodness j08 I hope that isn't true.

That is your view Geraldine. We can make up our own minds. And we don't always agree with judges. (shock horror)

No, I don't mean you Sel. The posts are there to see.

With regard to my question to you, I understand that you won't now see images of child abuse painted and photographed by Ovenden, but I was asking you how you would feel if one of your own had been painted by him. Can you empathise with those poor parents and grandparents who now know so much more about the harm this man has done, whether to their own or other children?

It is common for there to be change in society, what once was acceptable changes and becomes no longer tolerated. Slave trading was once thought of as a respectable profession, we now look back at that with horror and disgust. It was once acceptable to send little boys up chimneys, again no longer.

Whilst Ovenden may have been celebrated by some, I wonder if at the time there were others who were uncomfortable with his pictures but said nothing because he was so celebrated?

Geraldine thank you for the explanation. My understanding of the case is that the photos were taken in the course of this man's work as an artist and were not, themselves pornographic. The fact that the man himself is now a convicted sex offender is immaterial - the argument on here was about the deletion of the pictures which seemed a somewhat arbitrary decision.

It's your site, your decision which I fully accept.

"in the current climate"

You mean "hysteria" Geraldine.