graham ovenden sentencing and lord mcalpine

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.

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

Or thinks they do.

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."

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.

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, 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?

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.

when Exactly! It's disgusting.

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.

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.

All hail the social workers.

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?

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.

"in the current climate"

You mean "hysteria" Geraldine.

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.

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?

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?

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

My goodness j08 I hope that isn't true.

Accused in effect that is

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?

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

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

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.