graham ovenden sentencing and lord mcalpine

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Professional??? How dare you!

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.

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

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

Pitiable!

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.

I put the links up to inform other posters. To aid a discussion.

I am disgusted with Gransnet HQ.

If, as could be possible, they have legal reasons for the deletions, they should say so.

It's bloody annoying to me that images of abused children become marketable and are shown via link on a forum!

You can see them Petallus - They are out there if you need to -it's just that there's a thousand reasons why there should not be a GN link available one of which is that these children/ young people are/were someone's grandchildren. Do you honestly believe that there should be no control over what we post links to on GN - goodness, when I think what I've had posts deleted for!!!

You're entitled to your opinion Petallus. You can search for images of children that Ovenden has abused yourself, or pm Jingle for the link

iam64 I agree with you!
Whoops Lord McAlpine! the fact that you have pictures like that does not do your reputation any good! However I am aware that your have not been convicted of any offence. It is probably fortunate they were not on a computer.

I was disgusted by Ovendens "bleats" on being convicted that he only wanted to record the innocence of children. That is just what many pedophiles say to try and justify their actions.

JO8s post of the picture at 09:44 Has given me some idea of exactly what his paintings are about. I had not seen any of them.

That one seems to me to be a clear statement of indecent thoughts. Has that actually been hanging in a gallery somewhere?
Has the Art establishment been ignoring content because of some bizzarre ideas of artistic freedom or what? These images should be destroyed or they will start to command value for all the wrong reasons.

I would have liked to decide for myself whether or not to have a look at the paintings. If they have been hanging in an art gallery without a problem up until now that makes me curious.

It's bloody annoying to me when a few people appoint themselves as moral guardians of GN, tell us what we should and should not put on here and report stuff to GNHQ.

Oh right. I think that is absolutely ridiculous.

I am really amazed that anyone at Gransnet HQ would be so narrow minded. I thought this was a serious discussion for grownups.

I worked with a woman who had been to a model agency to have a portfolio of photos done when she was a teenager. A few years later, Peter Martin (co-defendent with Owen Oyston, who was convicted of rape) was convicted for sexual offences against children and young women who had done the same thing - gone along in all innocence to have their photos taken as they wanted to be models.

My colleague was devastated when she learned that she had been filmed whilst getting changed in a private dressing room, and her photos had been shared with sex offenders. She wasn't assaulted, but she knows how close she was to being abused, and how that could have affected her life. Peter Martin even managed to smuggle photos into prison and showed them to other offenders.

My point is that any child who was painted by Ovenden will have been affected by this, and continuing to show such pictures is unfair to them.

I can understand your feelings about such issues, Jingle, but please don't put this stuff on here. Let's have a reasoned discussion. We all abhor child abuse, and disseminating the evidence of how a convicted sex offender has behaved by posting links to pictures of recognisable children (now adults) is disrespectful to them.

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

Jingle the pictures have been removed from display in the Tate for the same reason as objections are being raised here.

I believe Lord Mcalpine has donated the money he received to charity.

I too felt uncomfortable viewing the pictures on the link, particularly the ones which showed a girl sitting on a man's lap. I know they are already in the public domain but I had never seen them before.