Nonce Sense

Christopher Spivey.

 

In 2013 I wrote extensively about the paedophile artist Graham Ovenden – as you will see if you if you type his name into the site search bar.

Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who do not know who the nonce is, the following is what Wikipenis has to say about him:

Graham Stuart Ovenden. (born 11 February 1943) is an English painter, fine art photographer and writer.

Some of Ovenden’s art has been investigated as possible child pornography by US and UK authorities and in 2009, he was prosecuted in the UK on a charge of creating indecent images but not convicted. In 2013, Ovenden was found guilty of six charges of indecency with a child and one charge of indecent assault against a child, and on 9 October 2013, he was jailed for two years and three months by the Court of Appeal. Following his conviction, some galleries removed images of his work from display. In 2015, a judge ordered that Ovenden’s personal collection of paintings and photographs be destroyed.

Artist Graham Ovenden at his studio in Bodmin, Cornwall. (file photo) See SWNS story SWTATE: Britain’s leading gallery has sparked outrage by continuing to display artworks by a world-acclaimed artist who blindfolded and sexually abused young girls as they posed for his paintings. Warped Graham Ovenden, 70, covered his victims’ eyes with tape and made them parade in Victorian nighties before subjecting them to sick assaults. He invited the girls to his studio and made oil paintings and took photographs – while also abusing them. Much of his work, including portraits of children, has been displayed at venues including the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Now among the many high-class low-life fans and collectors of Ovenden’s ‘art’ are (the now deceased) Lord McAlpine, Lord Hutchinson and fellow artists Sir Hugh Casson and David Hockney

Moreover, that 2009 arrest was interesting and had indications that Ovenden was being protected.

You see, in 2009 Ovenden’s house was raided by Police, resulting in the artist being dragged into court. The following is how the Telegraph reported it:

An artist, whose work has been displayed at The Tate, has claimed that indecent pictures of children found on his computer were “work in progress”, and not child pornography.

Graham Ovenden, 67, was found with indecent pictures in the file on his PC and despite trying to delete it and said they were to be used for an art work, a court heard.

Mr Ovenden is a painter, fine art photographer and writer, who has displayed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Tate and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

But officers found 16 separate images Mr Ovenden had created and 121 other indecent images stored in files in his computer’s memory, the court heard.

Officers found the files when they raided his Gothic mansion in Cornwall and Ovenden admits he made the images on his computer.

But Mr Ovenden – whose major works feature young girls – says the pictures were all being used to create an ”end product” for artistic display.

Mr Ovenden does not deny making the images but has pleaded not guilty to 34 different child porn offences.

Ramsay Quaife, prosecuting, at Truro Crown Court, said: ”What the police found was a graphic application called Adobe Photoshop, and its the use of the file browser in this programme to view the images which led to the cache files being created.

”You can be sure that the copy of the images in the cache is the same as the image made by Mr Ovenden – he was making these images, and a virtual trace or footprint was left on the computer.

”Through what the experts found on the computer and through admissions of the defendant, you can be quite sure the defendant was making indecent images on this computer.”

Officers raided Mr Ovenden’s home in November 2006 and Mr Quaife says he immediately admitted they were his pictures.

He said: ”When first asked about the images, Mr Ovenden said they were deliberately intended so we should find them, and that he had been working on his creations for about a year.

”He added ‘I am totally responsible in every way’. Mr Ovenden said to police, ‘the process of the image making is actually to create corruption, then overlay corruption’.”

The court heard in police interview Ovenden then quoted Shakespeare’s Hamlet to explain why he made the images.

Mr Quaife said: ”He told officers, ‘it is but skin and film, an ulcerus place, while rank corruption lies within’.

”But what the crown say is that there can be no doubt that these images are indecent – indecent pseudo images are indecent.

”By the means of modern technology, pretty much anyone can have a virtual studio on their computer – and he was busy making thoroughly indecent images on that computer.”

Robert Linford, defending, argued his client had the images as a means to create his famous artwork.

He says his client had shown completed work to officers which appeared to show the image of a young girl, with words of poetry superimposed over the image.

Mr Linford said: ”My client repeatedly wrote to the police and showed them these images of his final pieces of work.

”It would have been in rather flowery artistic language, but ‘look, here are the final prints, this is the final product’.

”He has repeatedly argued that the images seized from him were very much a work in progress, and that these were the final outcomes, the prints were the finished products.”

Mr Ovenden has pleaded not guilty to 16 counts of making indecent images of children, and 16 counts of making indecent sudo photographs of children.

He is also charged with two counts of possessing 121 indecent photographs and ”pseudo photographs” of children.

In 1975 Ovenden founded the artistic movement the ‘Brotherhood of Ruralists’ with then-wife Jann Haworth and fellow artists Graham Arnold and David Inshaw.

Mr Ovenden was born in Hampshire and attended Itchen Grammar School and the Royal College of Music before taking up painting around 1962.

He was tutored by Lord David Cecil and Sir John Betjeman and attended the Southampton School of Art, and graduated from the Royal College of Art in 1968.

However, the court case appeared to be plagued by problems, not least by the Police dragging their feet. And on October 22nd 2009, two days into the trial, the Jury was discharged and a new court date set.

On April 9th 2010 the case was thrown out of court after a 5 minute hearing due to two police officers – Key Prosecution Witnesses – who failed to turn up. The Police later declined to comment and the CPS refused to disclose how much the three and a half year investigation had cost the Tax payer.

Nevertheless, just 9 days later the Old Bill again swooped on Ovenden. The following is from the ‘Novel Activist’ website:

After the child pornography case was dismissed Ovenden was charged again: four counts of indecent assault on a girl under the age of 14, five counts of child neglect and four charges of false imprisonment – relating to offences committed in 1990. The case was due to be heard earlier this year (2011). It is now September and I cannot find any record of the trial being held.

This is odd.

If he had been found guilty surely the news would have been everywhere? The tabloids love this sort of story. So what happened? These charges are serious and if they had any merit the case would surely have proceeded? I can’t find any information. Perhaps the case was dismissed and it was only reported in the legal notices? I don’t know, but if anyone does, please let me know.

But there is another clue. The blog primarily discusses the fact that the Tate Modern removed its collection of Ovendens from their website. This was around the same time as the controversy over Spiritual America, which featured a young Brooke Shields (she approves of the picture).

But now the Tate has put the Ovendens back on their website. Could it be that Ovenden has been cleared, which means the Tate collection has also been cleared? Would the Tate place the collection on their website if he had been found guilty of serious child sex offences? I think not.

In any case, the fact that the Ovenden collection is available to the public means they provide a guide to what the Tate Modern thinks is legal and legitimate. 

Neither can Wikipedia shed any light on the verdict. The on-line Encyclopaedia mentions Ovenden’s arrest on the 19th of April 2010 but fails to make mention of the outcome.

It is interesting however; that the Tate modern deems Ovenden’s work fit to exhibit.

Now I say it is interesting because The Tate is a member of the contemporary art society whose spiel reads: We promote the collecting of contemporary art through our gifts to public museums and the advice and guidance we offer companies and individuals.  http://www.contemporaryartsociety.org/media/uploads/2010/07/4765/cas-2002-pdf.pdf

The Patron of the CAS is The Queer Mother, despite her being dead since 2002. The Queer Mother is alleged to have been a paedophile.

Of the ten Vice Patrons, two are the Viscount and Viscountess Windsor, and a third was none other than Lord McAlpine of West Green… AKA Lord Alistair McAlpine AKA Robert McAlpine AKA Nonce McAlpine.

Course, the Tate Gallery was just one of many who also displayed the vile, Nan Golding photograph called “Clara and Edda Belly Dancing” which is owned by Elton John… Least it was although I cannot say for sure whether or not he still owns it.

Nevertheless, I was made to suffer terribly for reporting on this vile art as most of you will know. You see, by showing you what the elite class as ‘art’ I was unforgivably charged with distributing child pornography – the vast majority of which were photos of Graham Ovenden’s work.

PICT0211

Nevertheless, in an attempt to discredit me for discrediting them the corrupt old bill insisted on going to court despite all of the images being legal, available to buy, owned by the rich and famous and displayed in art galleries around the world.

Course, once in court I was immediately found Not guilty on ALL counts and the trial judge had some very harsh words to say about the prosecution… And rightly so too.

Yet this is all old news so why am I bringing it all up again, you ask.

And the answer to that is because on the 3rd of this month I received an email from a mush called Lester Caine:

Very strange!

I mean who the fuck is Lester Caine? And whilst my email address is no secret you have to wonder how Lester got hold of it.

Nevertheless, Lester says that Ovendon personally asked him to send me the link included in the email – which I will come to shortly.

Lester apparently then goes on to defend Ovenden and insinuate that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Course, it isn’t stated whether or not that the insinuation was made also at the behest of Ovenden.

Mind you, that said I do know from personal experience just how wholly corrupt the justice system is and indeed the equally corrupt police refused to use vital [non disclosed] evidence which would have put a stop to them prosecuting me in the first place.

However, Lester states that:

“Graham has only been found guilty of taking the photographs which the previous cases had already dismissed and which were all eventually returned as not obscene since none of them are 
classified as child pornography even today!”

Yet the prison sentence that Ovenden received was predominantly because of physical child abuse, NOT taking photos. The following is taken from the Telegraph:

Ovenden, who was taught by the renowned pop art pioneer Sir Peter Blake, denied that he had assaulted any of the children. He claimed he was the target of a witch hunt and that his images of children were about capturing them in a “state of grace”.

But a jury found him guilty of seven offences, including touching a girl’s breasts and getting into a bath with the same girl and asking her to feel him. The other convictions relate to photographs he took of two other girls. Source 

Dirty Cunt.

Lester then finishes his email by saying that the Internet Watch Foundation are “more than happy” that Ovenden’s paintings appear on “the website” as “there is nothing they can raise objections to” …

Course, whilst it maybe true that LEGALLY the IWF cannot raise objections to the ‘art’ appearing on the internet, I very much doubt that they are “more than happy” about it.

Moreover, Lester is defending the monster’s art and overlooking the fact that the nonce was convicted of sexually abusing children.

Nevertheless, I then clicked on the link that Lester had sent and got the following:

And if you cannot read what the screenshot of Ovenden’s website says, it states the following:

Since my Blog Master has remarkable abilities in locating past websites of dubious character and malice this pearl of perversion has come to my notice (www.chrisspivey.org).

Firstly, we may return the compliment “you may run but certainly can’t hide”. Yes Mr Spivey, a maxim which ex supporters of National Socialism in Germany were to find, rightly to their cost.

In fact the more I look at Mr Spivey’s site the more I am reminded of the official Nazi journal Der Sturmer and its vile editor Julius Streicher. There is the arrogant pose of Spivey that fronts the site (a change of cloth to that of a notorious uniform would no doubt complete the transformation). The use of unseemly language, the four letter words seem to drip of his tongue like Cobbit’s Weeping Wen … but it is obvious that this unfortunate individual is more obsessed by what lies between his legs rather than that of between his ears.

A few corrections and observations are in order.

a) The full length nude of Josie represented Gt Britain in the seminal exhibition held in Berlin at the Martin-Gropius Bau, Feb to April 1996.

b) The jacket cover of the book … To my knowledge this image was never used as a jacket cover; is this Spivey’s invention? Also, the application of stars to the image or page, was always regarded as an accolade of merit when I was a child. Thus this emphasis of genitals, breasts (of which as yet there is no evidence) shows a moral confusion. Are these stars showing an enthusiasm for these normalities of mother nature or are they laid on as the product of a diseased mind. I suggest Spivey take note of the article in Novel Activist and the child’s/adult’s reactions to the placing of a puerile negation over Mother Nature’s work.

c) The child balancing on the railings is not a painting but a photo mezzotint. Its correct title is Dare Me, this being appropriate, as the Thames lies some 20ft below and on the left hand side of the child. You will note that this image is from my Childhood Streets photographic essay and was taken when I was 14 years of age. This series of images are now celebrated as one of the most important photographic essays created since the Second WW.

Graham Ovenden  Source

So let’s take a closer look at what the sick-fuck has to say starting with his opening gambit:

Since my Blog Master has remarkable abilities in locating past websites of dubious character and malice this pearl of perversion has come to my notice (www.chrisspivey.org).

Oh you couldn’t make it up don’t cha know. Nevertheless, what we have here is a perverted, convicted child molester calling my website a website of “dubious character and malice” and a “pearl of perversion“… Oh my fucking days. Has the dirty cunt got no shame?

And I can assure the sick-fuck ‘artist’, that there was no intended “malice” in what I wrote… I simply think that he is the lowest form of life on the planet and should have been jailed for life. I also note that the link to my site takes you to the home page and not the articles that I wrote about Ovenden… Dog forbid that he had of done since those articles are pretty damming.

The cunt then continues:

Firstly, we may return the compliment “you may run but certainly can’t hide”. Yes Mr Spivey, a maxim which ex supporters of National Socialism in Germany were to find, rightly to their cost.

And once again I note that Ovenden does not publish a link to where I wrote “you may run but certainly can’t hide”… However, I think that the nonce is likening me to a Nazi war criminal! Did Nazi War Criminals write about kiddie fiddlers then?

He then continues:

In fact the more I look at Mr Spivey’s site the more I am reminded of the official Nazi journal Der Sturmer and its vile editor Julius Streicher. There is the arrogant pose of Spivey that fronts the site (a change of cloth to that of a notorious uniform would no doubt complete the transformation).

Yep, the nonce is definitely likening me to a Nazi! Roger that:

The use of unseemly language, the four letter words seem to drip of his tongue like Cobbit’s Weeping Wen … but it is obvious that this unfortunate individual is more obsessed by what lies between his legs rather than that of between his ears.

What a Cunt!

Nevertheless, the dirty fucker then suggests that I am obsessed with my penis… Typical perv, bringing the subject round to sex at every available opportunity… Although I do have a smashing dick.

 A few corrections and observations are in order. 

This will be interesting:

a) The full length nude of Josie represented Gt Britain in the seminal exhibition held in Berlin at the Martin-Gropius Bau, Feb to April 1996.

HUH? So fucking what, we have already established that his child porn is protected by law under the guise of ‘Art’.

b) The jacket cover of the book … To my knowledge this image was never used as a jacket cover; is this Spivey’s invention? Also, the application of stars to the image or page, was always regarded as an accolade of merit when I was a child. Thus this emphasis of genitals, breasts (of which as yet there is no evidence) shows a moral confusion. Are these stars showing an enthusiasm for these normalities of mother nature or are they laid on as the product of a diseased mind. I suggest Spivey take note of the article in Novel Activist and the child’s/adult’s reactions to the placing of a puerile negation over Mother Nature’s work.

Now I think that the Kiddie Fiddler is referring to an article that I wrote in which I mentioned his child porn ‘art’ book: Fall from Grace.

Course, there is a chance that the photo (which is included in the book) that I used may not have been the cover… Nevertheless, a quick Google search today (11/11/18) brought up the following:

 

Therefore you can see where the mistake arose from and makes no difference no matter how hard the filthy fucker tries to defend himself.

I have also once again added stars to censor the photo… My bad. You can also read more HERE

c) The child balancing on the railings is not a painting but a photo mezzotint. Its correct title is Dare Me, this being appropriate, as the Thames lies some 20ft below and on the left hand side of the child. You will note that this image is from my Childhood Streets photographic essay and was taken when I was 14 years of age. This series of images are now celebrated as one of the most important photographic essays created since the Second WW.

Hmmm. It seems that I stand corrected. It wasn’t a painting it was a “photo mezzotint” and not titled “lure me” as I stated in the article.

PHOTO: “Dare Me” as it appeared in my article

Well, that well and truly put me and my big dick in fucking place didn’t it!

Ovenden, you are a proper sick-in-the-head piece of shit… Fuck off.

Oh, and as a final thought it is interesting that there is a photo of Madeleine McCann posing in the exact same way as one of Graham Ovenden’s models.

Mind you, the girl in Ovenden’s photo is – for some reason – showing her nipple… Just sayin’.