Dec 6 2012
WARNING: This article contains photos likely to offend. Therefore, if you are one of those who would prefer child abuse to be kept out of sight, out of mind, do not read further. However. in doing so, be aware that you are part of the problem.
Well it’s all gone a bit quiet hasn’t it?
Derek Laud is absolutely nowhere to be seen. Still, you can bet your life that the Old Bill hasn’t been to see him yet. Mind you, it seems that his political mates have all deserted him. His Wikipedia page used to be a veritable who’s who of parliamentary top knobs. Strange how those names have now disappeared.
Likewise, the big boast on Laud’s Wikipedia page was that he was a good friend of the Cameron’s and even attended their wedding. That reference has gone too… Maybe the Old Bill are going to visit him after all.
Mind you, if he threatens to squeal, I would image that he will be spared a trial. It is in fact fair to say that if he threatens to squeal, he may never ever be seen again… Good.
Anyone seen Ken ‘i’ll fuckin sue’ Clarke lately? Hmmm. I wonder if the Old Bill have popped round to his gaff now that Ben Fellows has made a formal complaint to the Police. (Source- http://thetap.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/breaking-ben-fellowes-goes-to-police.html)
Fellows is quoted as saying:
“Yesterday the 30th November 2012 I spent eight hours with a Police Officer making a statement against Cabinet Minister Kenneth Clarke MP. It’s official! Now that the Police can investigate, let’s see what happens. I’m willing to go to court and see this thing through, win or lose”.
I would imagine that Ben’s allegation also covered Laud’s odious friend Ian Greer.
Neither has the MSM said any more in regards to Rolf Harris, although to be fair, they didn’t say that much in the first place. However, the Tap Blog has said that Harris was given a caution: http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/rolf-harris-cautioned-do-we-need.html
If the above is true, then Harris would have had to plead guilty to whatever charge was levelled at him. Sky news, although not actually naming Harris, said he was being questioned about allegations of sexual abuse. Meanwhile, I presume Harris still remains suicidal since he has made no comment to the army of press reporters camped outside his Berkshire home.
Bleeding heart, Esther Rantzen has also reportedly been sacked by the NAPAC, for not speaking out earlier about Savile’s paedophilia. I didn’t see that splashed all over the Daily’s either, did you:
Esther Rantzen, the founder of ChildLine, has been sacked by the National Association for People Abused in Childhood. The decision follows Rantzen’s admission that she blocked her ears to all the rumours about Jimmy Savile.
Cameron has said no more about the Tom Watson’s allegation. It kinda stinks of head down, say nothing and the sheeple will forget. Even that bit of scandal involving Clegg and the £12 million charity donation fiasco hasn’t been reported on since the story broke last Sunday.
Steve Messham appears to have gone to ground although the Tap Blog does say that he is now on Twitter looking for a Lawyer. If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then the implication is that no Solicitor was willing or brave enough to act for him at the time of the ‘Newsnight’ fiasco.
That in turn suggests that Messham was at the Mercy of Nonce McAlpine’s Solicitor, Andrew Reid at the time of his allegation retraction. And we know how intimidating he can be… Still waiting for my Letter Andy. Twat.
David Icke on the other hand has suggested that Messham could well be not who he claims to be, as has the Renegades Blog:
I have it on excellent authority that there are real and serious problems with Steve Messham’s story…and I’m talking about from people who were in the home with him…I suspect that he was used to discredit other victim testimonies and that is looking increasingly likely.
For the full story go to: https://renegadesblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/not-just-me-then/
Predictably, The Sun didn’t answer the question that I Emailed them despite acknowledging the communication and saying that they would reply within 3 days, should the enquiry require an answer. I would have thought that all enquiries required an answer, but hey ho, what the fuck do I know. The Email I sent the Newspaper read thus:
Hi, My name is Chris Spivey and I am looking into an allegation made on the internet about Leon Brittan. I have it on good authority that you were investigating the former Home Secretary in 1989 in regard to the allegation. The allegation is that Brittan raped a young boy. The details are along the lines of the following:
The police raided a house after they found a young, half naked boy staggering in the street. When police asked what had happened he told them about Brittan and took them to the house were the sex attack had taken place. When the officer called in to report, they were ordered to take the boy in and when they got there, there were 2 officers from the security service waiting. The story was then covered up. A short time later, Brittan was summoned to meet his fellow MP William Hauge, who told Brittan that he was to resign his post and that he was going to be made commissioner for the UK.
As you no doubt know, Brittan was later forced to resign his post in 1999 amid accusations of large scale fraud. A key member of his office staff back then was the current Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. I am further reliably informed that the investigating journalist, who is no longer in your employ was told to drop the 1989 rape investigation.
My question to you therefore is; can you confirm or deny that your newspaper was ordered to drop the investigation into the rape accusations (along with other similar accusations) made against Leon Brittan.
I look forward to your response.
Hmmm. I wonder if Cleggy got the £12 million charity donation idea from Brittan. Just a thought.
The Prince of Darkness, Peter Mandelson is also keeping schtum about his involvement with Prince Andrews former bum chum, the paedophile Jeffery Epstein. Likewise, so is Norman Tebbit remaining tight lipped about what he knew in regards to Peter Morrisons penchant for kiddy fiddling. Source – http://www.davidicke.com/headlines
Course, Del Boy Laud isn’t the only one to have alterations made to his Wikipedia page. Apparently, so has Nonce McAlpine, another one of those with a lot of bluster who has now gone to ground. The Tap Blog carried the following story:
“I am Barbara Richards, or Zoompad and I am one of the survivors of the Staffordshire Pindown child abuse/cover up and secret family court persecution and abuse. I think Lord McAlpine’s Wikipedia entry might have been altered recently, because there seems to be a tiny bit of it missing now. It was something about him being the mysterious buyer of some erotic art, I think it was a photographic collection”.
Now, while I cannot vouch for Ms Richards’s credibility, the claim would make sense. The Art collection in question was sold in 2003. The following is by Kate McClymont:
The ownership of a substantial collection of erotic photos from the world of high fashion has caused a minor stir in art circles.
To be auctioned in London next Friday, the owner of the assembled works – A (Very) Private Collection: Fashion and Eroticism Photographs 1970-1990 – is keen to remain anonymous.
A report in London’s Sunday Times noted the collection was initially thought to be that of an ageing roue, with an eye for the ladies, who was now desperate for the 100,000 or so pounds the collection is expected to bring.
The paper then received a tip the seller was the prodigious collector and former Tory treasurer, Lord Alistair McAlpine, who is hardly short of a quid.
But while the peer did assemble the collection, seven years ago he kindly donated 700 photographs by the likes of Bob Carlos Clarke, David Bailey, Terence Donovan, designer Karl Lagerfeld and others to the Art Gallery of NSW. It now appears the anonymous collector who is quietly flogging the snaps is indeed our very own art gallery.
The marketing manager for Bloomsbury Book Auctions, which is handling the sale, would not reveal to Sauce the identity of the seller, except to confirm it was an institution rather than an individual.
Despite the art gallery’s director, Edmund Capon, being a friend of Lord McAlpine, the peer knew nothing of the sale until contacted by the Sunday Times.
When Sauce contacted McAlpine, who is busy with the upcoming opening of his B & B, formerly a 14th century convent in southern Italy, his lordship was more miffed by the sleazy title.
“I’m not put out, because if they [the art gallery] want to sell something I gave them, that’s their business. The fact is, I just think it was very silly to sell these things.
“While they might not seem of great importance to a curator or photographer sitting in Sydney, which isn’t the epicentre of the new world, they are considered to be an important collection.”
Edmund Capon did not return our calls although the gallery did send the Sunday Times an email saying: “Apologies, the gallery is unable to make a comment.”
The works are described by a Sunday Times critic as influential, daring and highly formalised and that the clothes depicted “signal glamour and the high-life, not sleaze”. “The pictures in this collection were shot as high art, but their effect has been to spread this kind of eroticism throughout the culture,” the article said.
“This collection is extraordinary because it captures the moment just before we chose to make eroticism banal, an environmental itch rather than a secret delight.”
Source – http://21stcenturywire.com/category/australia/
However, what the Sunday Times failed to mention was that included in that collection were 10 pictures of very young girls by the controversial artist Graham Ovenden. The following is taken from the Evening Standard newspaper printed on the 23rd of May 2003:
London bookseller Bloomsbury Book Auctions is today selling off Lord McAlpine’s former collection of photographs entitled ‘A (very) Private Collection: Fashion and Eroticism Photographs 1970-1990.
For some reason the auctioneers coyly refer to ‘an historical collection… put together in London… by a well known but anonymous collector’.
Could the coyness have anything to do with the fact that the 344 pictures include 10 snaps of very young girls in suggestive poses by Graham Ovenden?
My source tells me the ‘anonymous but well known collector’ is former Conservative Party Treasurer, Lord McAlpine who in 1996 gave the photographic collection to an Australian Gallery, who in turn sold them on to Bloomsbury Book Auctions.
It is being widely reported on Facebook today that amongst the pictures was this one.
The Picture is certainly one of Graham Ovenden’s, but I cannot categorically state that it was one of the ten included in the collection.
So, who is Graham Ovenden?
Ovenden is an English artist whose catalogue appears to consist of little else other than paintings and photograph’s of little girls – mainly in the nude.
This vile man also seems to be protected by the Establishment:
Graham Ovenden (born 1943) is an English painter, fine art photographer, writer and architect. His estranged wife is the artist Annie Ovenden. Their daughter, Emily, is a writer and is a singer with the Mediaeval Baebes. His depictions of children have resulted in several legal actions against him, but no convictions; his work has received support from leading figures in the art world, and is included in the Tate gallery collection. Source – Wikipedia.
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. 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.
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. You can see the collection here. I’ve reproduced one image – perhaps the most dramatic – to indicate just what the Tate thinks is acceptable.
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. You can find out for yourself what this ‘art’ entails here: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/ovenden-she-kept-on-growing-p04732
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. Bill Maloney famously stood in the middle of a packed Trafalgar Square and loudly announced into a microphone that the Queer Mother was a Paedophile.
Of the ten Vice Patrons, two are the Viscount and Viscountess Windsor, and the third is none other than Lord McAlpine of West Green… AKA Lord Alistair McAlpine AKA Robert McAlpine AKA Nonce McAlpine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alistair_McAlpine,_Baron_McAlpine_of_West_Green
Now, you may remember that in a previous article I wrote this:
Members of the above named family[McAlpine] had (and probably still have) property in the Wrexham area. Marchwiel is a small village, a few minutes drive from the town. The family also hosted “hunting” parties in the area (Llanarmon). Refer to websites such as “The Field”, “Country Life”, “Horse and House” et al. References are made to the above mentioned family. Apparently “Bobby” is a particular “Good shot” with his gun!. I have been doing a bit of research myself and the McAlpine family tree is quite complex. Bobby may be Lord McAlpine or possibly a relative? (There are many of them). There are also references to a “James” or “Jimmy”. Without wanting to speculate any further, (and we have to be very careful here as one such person is already threatening legal action against social media sites), an ex-colleague of mine (who lives in the Wrexham area), once “witnessed” bizarre rituals in a local wood. He didn’t report this to anyone but was quite disturbed by what he witnessed. Food for thought?
Note the reference to Bobby McAlpine. And what is Bobby short for… Just saying.
Returning to the Tate Gallery, they and a number of other Art Galleries which are also members of CAS, displayed one of the vilest photographs that I have ever seen in my life. How the fuck anyone can call the picture Art is beyond me. Anyone who does is most definitely sick in the fucking head.
The photo, called ‘Klara & Edda Belly-Dancing’ and taken by Nan Goldin in 1998, was displayed as part of a collection called Thanksgiving. The Photo is of two young girls, one clothed and the other naked, both of whom have their legs spread open.
According to matthewhunt.com the photo:
Has previously been seen in several international exhibitions: Thanksgiving (White Cube, London, 2000), I Am A Camera (Saatchi Gallery, London, 2001), Le Feu Follet (Centre Pompidou, Paris, 2001), The Devil’s Playground (Whitechapel Art Gallery, London, 2002; Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, Madrid, 2002; Castello di Rivoli, Rome, 2002-2003; Ujazdowski Castle, Warsaw, 2003), and Still On Earth (Fundacao de Serralves, Porto, 2002). There’s a full-page reproduction of the original image in Goldin’s monograph The Devil’s Playground (2002).
Unbelievably, it wasn’t until the collection reached the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Newcastle, that a complaint was made and on the advice of the Police, the photo was withdrawn.
God knows what kind of vile pervert would want to own a piece of Child Pornography such as ‘Klara & Edda Belly-Dancing’… Well, that is a lie actually. I do know who owns the photograph.
The owner – who in fact owns the whole collection – is a flamboyant homosexual named Reginald Kenneth Dwight. Dwight is of course, no other than Elton John, who along with his partner, David Furnish are Fathers to a two year old son. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7013806.stm
Below is the picture. It was my original intention to censor it, but in doing so, I believe that the full shock impact, innuendo and implications of the photo would have been lost. I have therefore decided to publish the photo uncensored.
In doing so I will not entertain any comments condemning me for it. You had your warning at the very start. If you’re too fucking thick to understand the warning that is your problem, but it will take you a lot longer to type your complaint, than it will take me to press the delete button.
If the photo makes you feel uncomfortable… Good, I hope it does. It should do. It is a vile piece of work.
Therefore, I make no apologies for publishing the photo in its original form. To censor it, is tantamount to not facing up to the horrors of child abuse. Everyone needs to be aware of what these fucking elite arseholes get off on.They are sick, sick, sick and if you people need to be shocked into action, then so be it.
After you have seen it, I would suggest that you never again purchase another one of the vile mans CD’s or concert tickets. This is the kind of obscene filth that he uses the revenue for. Can you imagine what would happen if the Social Services knew that the likes of me and you had a two year old child, while owning vile material like this shit? Exactly.
That is about it for now although I should say that not everyone has gone to ground. In fact, it is fair to say that the Royal Family have never invaded the MSM as much as they have done over the past couple of weeks. Mind you, Prince Big Ears has made himself a bit scarce.
Course, every time that the vile in-bred’s have appeared, the press has been that far up the Royal arses that it must have been painful even by the parasitic family’s standards.
Even when the MSM start off an article by being mildly critical of them, they end up brown nosing. Take the Daily Mails story about the slave labour wages that the Queen is offering her Gardeners for instance. The article briefly mentions that the £300PW on offer isn’t a ‘Princely sum’, but the newspaper then spend the rest of the article telling us how environmentally friendly the tight arsed Bitch is.
Now, why would this in-bred family of parasites want the nation to think that they are a family of virtue? Hmmm. I can’t think, can you?
Until the next time,