graham ovenden sentencing and lord mcalpine

when I can't address your question as I just don't know what these pictures were like. I confess to knowing b all about this man or his paintings prior to this case. If I as a parent or grandparent had innocently allowed my child to be painted or photographed, fully clothed then I would not feel guilty. If I had allowed the same, unsupervised or unclothed then I would question my parenting.

I do appreciate that a lot of the emotion you feel must come from the profession you were in and personally, I thank you for being there for the children who did need protection. Not a job I could have ever done.

I have asked this question before and now again, why do these judges who hand out derisory sentences to paedophiles, not get investigated themselves?
'Old boys' network again?

All hail the social workers.

Ella they probably have many such paintings themselves! All private, of course! I have had visiting judges ask me why sex offenders need to undergo treatment/therapy (call it what you will) if they are not sick, but just have a 'natural proclivity towards children! Police are informed, but that 'old boy network' closes ranks.

I have been out all morning so I have only just seen this thread I don't think I am prudish because I don't want a forum for grandparents to disseminate photos that make some members uncomfortable.
Jingle -descending to personal insults just makes it seem that you are not able to sustain a reasonable argument.

when Exactly! It's disgusting.

I don't see why we 'need to see them for ourselves'. We don't get to see the indecent photographs in proven cases of child pornography, thank goodness. I certainly don't want to see them and I am surprised that anybody else does. We are not the judge and jury, so it doesn't matter if we see them or not.
I think you would have to be naïve in the extreme to think that a man who has abused children over many years did not have some sexual motive in painting naked children.

Sel, why do you think it is 'political correctness' for anybody to think these images should not deserve to disseminated? Would you prefer people to be politically incorrect? And why the anti-teacher attitude - did you have a bad time at school? I am surprised that somebody as obviously intelligent as yourself should descend to the same playground name calling as others. Can we avoid ad hominem comments, please, and stick to rational debate?

In a discussion in my presence of a similar case a few months ago, someone (a man) said that it was no-one else's business what pictures someone had on their computer, and they should not be arrested for it.

I would not agree. I was scanning an online newspaper a few years ago, and saw a name which sounded familiar. A man had been convicted of possessing indecent photographs of children. The name was distinctive, so I Googled it to find out more. Turned out he was a music teacher, taking classes part-time in several schools and giving private one-to-one lessons in pupils' homes, and organising musical events. He also sang in a prominent choir which was mostly composed of children aged from 7 to 14, who had rehearsals every morning before school, and every afternoon after lessons, and sang at two Sunday services and one midweek one, with rehearsals before each service. Plenty of opportunity to make "friends"

This man was in contact with young children from early morning until late evening, hundreds of them, in schools, churches, and private homes, often alone and close up. If he had not been charged and his trial and conviction reported in the press, who knows what harm he could have done?

It would not have been publicised that someone with that kind of interest was working and socialising with children if he had not been breaking the law by owning the photos.

Sel thanks for your last reply about my question - how would you feel? Yes, no good reason for any parent to feel guilty, or question their parenting if they had arranged to have their child photo'd or painted in ignorance of what did or could happen. Most still would feel bad, of course. We all want to protect our children.

But surely they could rightly feel distressed and aggrieved now, years later, that those pictures can be accessed by not only the public, but by other paedophiles, and will be out there forever. And if the punishment for being a bit careless about parenting is having to accept that those pictures can't be obliterated, that seems cruel, especially for the subjects of those pictures. A constant reminder of childhood abuse. No wonder so many people with such experiences cannot recover from them.

Ex-social worker here.
Do you think it's possible (or even likely) that having spent many, many years in the company of children and adults who have been abused that we, small minded elderly ex professionals may have some insights into the ongoing effects of childhood abuse that are not necessarily shared by the general population? And if so, is it possible that we are speaking from the perspective of having a much greater understanding of the issues than the general population?
Ovenden was charged and found guilty of the sexual abuse of children; most of the indecency charges related to photographs he took of two young girls. The judge said said that "Their victim impact statements make it quite clear how they have been affected."

Nah, GA you are an expert These days everyone knows better than an expert!

Or thinks they do.

GA and Whenim, thank you for your very informative and authoritative posts. Whatever our views are on this ghastly man and his twisted excuses, we are all better empowered to challenge those who would defend or minimise his offence.

when I have looked at the pictures - I don't know if the ones I saw were those Jo had linked to but what I did see,, disturbed me. I am not looking at them innocently though, but with the knowledge that this man was convicted.

My point though was that without seeing the pictures, I had nothing to base an opinion on.

I don't think anyone on here is attempting to make a case for the acceptance of child abuse or child pornography or denying the life long effects.

I wonder what the statistics are. Is there more sexual abuse of children now or just more knowledge of it? I had never even heard of such a thing until my mid twenties. Given that finding children sexually attractive is a condition of the mind, one presumes it was ever present but is there more now?

Don't get me wrong. I don't, myself, like the pictures. But I do wonder how they came to be accepted by the general public, and art experts too, for so many years. Until, in fact, the painter was exposed as having committed some child sex abuse crimes. And then everyone shrieks in horror at them. The painting remain exactly the same.

Could it be part of the climate engendered by Saville?

pornographic?

You going to delete that now Gransnet?

That's a fair point Jo numbers, but I would take issue with the idea that these images were always accepted by the general public and by 'art experts'.

Feminist commenters and art critics have long held a discourse about the objectification of women in art, about the way women are the focus of the male gaze, about the way women are so often infantilised in images and the fascination of so many 'artists' with prostitutes.

I think this would be a useful subje t for a new thread. But just to pose a question, perhaps you could take a look at a very well known Victorian painting of a prepubescent girl seated (I'll see if I can find a link soon) she wears a red fur trimmed coat and her hands are concealed in a muff.

Art - or - exploitation?

The painter, Ovenden, committed his crimes with the subjects of his paintings jingl. If a pervert painted a picture of your grandchild, and in the process of doing so committed a sex crime against that child, would you want that picture to be freely available?

Sel if you have looked at the gallery of pictures that are immediately available, they included the one that Jingle posted. Ovenden is undoubtably a brillant artist, but his fascination for what he sees as Lolita-type literature and erotica, and what the law defines as evidence of child abuse, has been his undoing. His distorted thinking is shared and supported by many people who only see what has been openly displayed. If they had a glimpse of the reality of child sexual abse, they would be sickened.

There are some beautiful paintings depicting the innocence, mischief and wonder of childhood, and it's a pleasure to admire them. Shame he coudn't stick to treating children as children because now his whole collection is defiled.

He will have childhood exeriences that have led him to develop his deviant sexual interest in children. I feel compassion for the child he was, but not for the adult he became. Most children who have been harmed in this way become responsible adults.

No, Jingle not pornographic

j08 Hmmm, Bronzino wasn't convicted (or charged, or suspected -note to descendants) of child abuse but it does illustrate your point.

There is a danger in an over zealous and hysterical attitude to child abuse. I would place banning photos in public parks, videoing school productions in that bracket.

It's sad that many children are actually quite scared of unknown adults now and also that many would feel they couldn't intervene if a child was lost and in distress in a public place as their motives might be misconstrued.

I was ruminating above on whether child abuse is more prevalent now than in the past or is it as per the Jimmy Saville et al cases, less acceptable. I do believe there are degrees of abuse.

Before everyone jumps on that last comment - I am not condoning child abuse, or rape.

There are some dubious pictures of children showing at the Saatchi gallery at the moment by Tierney Gearon. I dare n' t put a link. Someone would surely faint.

I do think if I'd been standing in a gallery viewing those pictures, I would have felt suspicious. As you say when, a pity he couldn't have stuck to painting children as children.

I doubt any major gallery will exhibit them now.

The link that Jingle put on here a few minutes ago shows a different scenario of innocence, not innocent children portrayed in a sexualised way. Not my cup of tea, but we're all different.