The Truth About IPP Sentences

Criticism of Ovenden sentence by charities undermines child protection

Criticism of judges does not protect children

Criticism of judges does not protect children

The Graham Ovenden case – recently concluded with Mr Ovenden walking free from court with a suspended sentence – has thrown into sharp relief the contempt shared by child abuse charities  when decisions in sensitive court cases do not go their way. believes that such criticisms of the judge’s decision from representatives of many so-called “respected” organisations is one of the clearest examples of dangerous hypocrisy that one is likely ever to find in today’s skewed, distorted, unreal and risk averse Britain.

Ovenden, a world renowned artist whose works have been displayed around the world for some 40  years now, was convicted of the indecent assault of children who posed for him in both  paintings and photographs.

The judge in the case, Judge Graham Cottle declared Ovenden to “no longer be a risk to  children”, a remark that caused near hysteria in child protection circles, even though the  judge had heard all the evidence and those representing child protection charities had not.

Peter Saunders, of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, said:

“It’s an  absolutely outrageous decision.”

Siobhan Pyburn, founder of The Phoenix Project for sexual abuse victims, said:

“In many  historic child abuse cases offenders are getting off simply because of their age.”

It is worth examining Pyburn’s statement in more detail, in particular her use of the words,  “getting off”, a phrase that often appears when a defendant charged with child sex offences is  either found to be innocent or given a non-custodial sentence.

What Pyburn is actually suggesting is that the judge is totally wrong and she of course is  totally right. would suggest however that there are not many people who would wish to be judged by a person dedicated to a singular cause and whose financial income depends on that cause.

Peter Saunders is not much better.

The fact that Mr Saunders believes that the judge’s decision in this case was “an absolutely  outrageous decision” is of no consequence whatsoever to anyone other than those who benefit  financially from his charity, NAPAC.

In fact, one wonders whether or not Mr Saunders should be criticising anyone at all.

Readers may be interested in an interesting analysis of Peter Saunders which possibly demonstrates that he is not always accurate (some may say “truthful”) in what he says or, at the very least, appears to possibly gets his facts and his dates confused. (See link at the end of this article)

The ubiquitous NSPCC couldn’t resist jumping on the bandwagon either:

David Tucker, the NSPCC’s associate head of policy, said:

“The judge in this case has clearly  found it difficult balancing the historical nature of these offences with the need to send out  a strong message that sexual offences cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.

“We would be concerned if the leniency shown here was followed in other cases.”

Mr Tucker’s rather grand title of “associate head of policy” immediately cast doubt on any  words that may come out of his mouth; after all, the policy of the NSPCC is not law, even if  they would like it to be.

Given how much money the suck from gullible members of the public, who gives a damn what the NSPCC think in the comfort of their expensive London offices, even if our weak politicians are incapable of staving off attacks from the largest child protection charity in the UK which -according to its own financial reports – has never directly given a penny to children, preferring instead to engage in  lobbying, campaigning, highly expensive television advertising and paying its own staff  exorbitant and inflated salaries.

The point wishes to make is a simple one:

When those accused of child sex offences are convicted, the charities, police and CPS all  rushed to the front to throw in their pennyworth of comment about “brave victims”, “despicable  acts of depravity”, “the defendant’s own sexual gratification” and how bad a person the  defendant is or was;  and how it is absolutely essential for the survival of children everywhere  that the defendant should be socially annihilated and preferably left in a deep, dark hole to  rot forever.

In the case of child protection charities, these comments are usually closely followed by an appeal for donations; nothing new there then.

When a defendant is acquitted or given a non-custodial sentence, the police and CPS are nowhere to be seen and all the charity groups can do is whine because they didn’t get their own way.

In other words, when defendants are convicted the charities, police and CPS like to twist the  knife as much as possible in order to gain as much favourable publicity as they can for their  own cause whereas, should the defendant be acquitted or receive a non-custodial sentence, the same organisations immediately condemn the judge, the system or even in some cases, the jury for simply doing the right thing.

In short, all these organisations that depend on the fear and prosecution of alleged child  abuse for their financial income and for their survival are only happy when things go their way – whether the defendant is guilty or not.

When Pyburn used the words, “getting off”, what she appears to be suggesting that whatever  the evidence may or may not show, whatever the jury may or may not think and whatever the  truth may or may not be, alleged “victims” never make false accusations, are always to be  believed and therefore anyone charged with a sexual offence against a child must always be  guilty.

FASO, a voluntary organisation dedicated to supporting anyone affected by a false allegation  of abuse, would beg to differ with Ms Pyburn’s view.

On FASO’s website (link at the end of this article) they sum up the situation very concisely:
“Law-abiding people like you are invaded or convicted on the word of a “victim” who either  holds a grudge against you, or else accuses you while barely knowing you, because substantial  financial compensation is quickly paid out to “victims” whether you are proved guilty or not.”

Do not think for one moment that is suggesting that child abuse never takes  place; we all know that it does and how harmful its long-term effects can be on both  to individuals and those around them.

There is no doubt however that since the Savile revelations – and even possibly before then –  the number of false allegations made against individuals, either for the purposes of revenge  or monetary gain, have increased.

For those individuals and organisations that still maintain that people never make false allegations – the view held by all the wealthiest child protection charities, the police and the CPS – a quick look at the latest newsletter of will show that this faith in the total innocence of alleged victims is completely misplaced.(Link at the end of this article)

On the first page of their current newsletter you will find a comprehensive list of recent cases where people have both been cleared of allegations brought before the court together with cases which have resulted in the jailing of individuals who have indeed made false, serious and highly damaging allegations of sexual assault where in fact no such assault actually took place.

Returning to the Ovenden case directly:

On leaving court, Ovenden was confronted by representatives of both the media and child  protection charities. One representative suggested that Ovenden considered himself to be the  only person who was right and everybody else was wrong.

In a follow-up comment, Ovenden suggested that he was “…probably 20 times more intelligent than most people”, a comment that has not done him any favours in terms of his ongoing relationship with the public but which is probably true when one looks at the appalling quality of the juries thrown together to judge what are inevitably sensitive and difficult cases.

It is also perhaps significant that many of the leading galleries in the UK have removed Ovenden’s work from public view.

They have done this not because they consider the works to be indecent (they have been displaying them for 40 years) but because they are afraid of being prosecuted for displaying works of art that they have now effectively been told are indecent by association.

The hypocritical agenda of child protection charities – supported by the equally misguided feminist grab for power that supports them – threatens to undermine not only the cultural DNA of Britain but also runs the risk of ridiculing decisions made by perfectly competent and experienced judges who know a great deal more about the law and any particular case than does any member of any critical charitable body or lobby group.

Perhaps though, the greatest and most tragic hypocrisy of all demonstrated by these self-serving protection groups is that by ridiculing and criticising decisions of the court, they undermine the claims of genuine victims whilst simultaneously keeping the door open for those who wish to make a quick buck at the expense of great lives, great reputations – and human compassion.

(Discuss this further in our Members Forum)

(You can read the article on Peter Saunders HERE)

(You can read the FASO website HERE)

(Link to newsletter HERE)

Tags: , , , , ,

7 Responses to Criticism of Ovenden sentence by charities undermines child protection

  1. Siobhan Pyburn
    August 20, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    I know I’m a little bit late, but as one of the people mentioned in this article I must say… I don’t understand how my stating that some child abusers get off because of their age is the same as saying that I am completely right and the judge is completely wrong. That was a bit of a leap. I am suggesting exactly what it is that I am saying, that’s all.

    (Incidentally it’s a misquote anyway, but what can you do?)

    And whilst I am dedicated to the singular cause of helping survivors of abuse in whatever way I can, let me point out that, contrary to your assumption, my income doesn’t rely on my charitable work as it is completely voluntary. There is no salary. Though of course if the writer would like to donate to keep our service running, I would be much obliged. 😉

    Please don’t make assumptions.

  2. Mike
    June 11, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    I was surprised to read this excellent article by Raymond.

    The surprise was caused by the fact that although much has been made of Graham Ovenden’s arrest and trial, with the scumbag press naming him as a “predator” and “pervert”, they didn’t seek to report the dismissal of his case.
    Similarly with Andrew Lancel, the ITV actor, who was found not guilty, yesterday.
    Nothing was reported on the BBC., or other broadcast channels, though there was some on the BBC red button & internet site.

    I have asked them about about the lack of broadcast material.

    One other bit of news which has had only minor interest shown (probably not sensationalist enough) is that the DPP., Keir Starmer announced that from June fifth, cases can be reviewed, if an NFA result is given in most cases.

    We were lead to believe previously that ALL “historic” cases could, or were going to be reviewed; that is not going to be, as it was quite clear that only cases from that June date would be looked at in future.

    Perhaps the realisation that reviewing the 88,000 cases declared ‘No Further Action’, in 2011 alone, would be too expensive!

    The most alarming news from today, is that (some) accusers of alleged sexual offences, are not going to be in court to be questioned, with video taken at the point before a trial takes place used instead. This is extremely worrying, and can lead to an accusation of the abolition of the right to a fair trial being levelled at the MoJ.

    The right to question an accuser has been enshrined in English law for centuries.
    Of course one can see how very young children may benefit from not being “harassed” or called liars in court (!)
    This latest attack on human rights, coupled with new restrictions which may be placed on Legal aid, and the admittance of uncorroborated hearsay as “evidence” should be addressed by a firm of brave lawyers, but as yet none are forthcoming.

  3. JoeS.
    June 9, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Peter Saunders claims there are a ‘billion’ child victims but a memory for figure is not his strong point.
    In his autobiography he says he was abused from the age of 5 but in this Youtube interview he says it was from the age of 7 ( ).
    He has said variously at times the abuser was a family member but then it became a Head Master at his school but along the line that changed to a teacher at the school with the Head Master helping Saunders bring his abuser to justice.
    In 2010 Saunders was now saying 2 priests at his Primary School had abused him. That was after Saunders who says in interviews the early abuse and perpetrators had never left his memory (thus leading to his despair) yet he then claimed he finally remember the priestly abusers co-incidently at a time he was asking the Catholic Church to fund the NACAP which they refused to do.
    All these sudden memory glitches are on the web and easily found yet there is no mention in any newspaper of Saunder’s abuser/s being prosecuted but even that is clouded in mystery as Saunders has said he reported his abuser and the police turned him down but at other times he says the abusing teacher was prosecuted but not the others.

    It’s all very odd.

  4. Noethni
    June 9, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    When there is even a sniff of a child being involved in a case the defendant is clearly GUILTY. Sometimes they are lucky and it is proved they are not but that is too late. According to the law of this land everyone is INNOCENT until PROVED guilty.
    That is the judge’s job – if he or she says the defendant is either innocent or not in need of a custodial sentence, that is where it should end.
    Child protection charities do nothing to support those affected; they just like to shout and demand money.

  5. Stephen
    June 9, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Rather than discuss this entire article in full since you have done a particularly good job of writing concisely and factually again, I would like to express a point (or it could be a question for those who are more up-to-date on this than I am).

    Archbold, who so many in the legal profession know so very well, has (or had) a paragraph stating that before the Court imposed a custodial sentence it should consider the risk to the public. Was the defendant going to be a continuing risk to the public so that a custodial sentence would be necessary in order to protect the public. This threw a rather different complexion on the whole idea of a custodial sentence being solely one of punishment.

    Therefore, does a Judge still have to weigh public protection against liberation? If so, then surely living for x number of years in the community without any question of illegal activities should be the strongest of claims that a custodial sentence is not required. Indeed, this would apply to so many so-called historical sex offence cases where the complaints go back anything up to 40 and 50 years ago. If there has been no complaint in the interim, if there has been no court action taken for “similar” illegal activities then, even if the defendant were actually guilty of those historical offences, he/she has “proven” he/she has not been a risk to the public since that time. Hence, a custodial sentence is not required other than to fulfil the whims of… and here we move back into this sensible article.

    Prison is too often regarded as punishment yet it is not solely for punishment it is a protective measure, a means to protect the public and prevent a person from re-offending during that time. A Court should be a Court, not a public gallery, not the means for persons to have their names in the newspapers and gain 15 minutes of unwarranted fame. And absolutely nothing that goes on before or during a Court case should be made public until AFTER a person admits guilt or is declared guilty based upon irrefutable evidence.

    Has anyone else seen that Archbold paragraph relating to a custodial sentence being primarily to protect the public from a defendant’s re-offending?

    • testman
      June 9, 2013 at 5:34 pm

      If you want the answer to this and many other questions, join the forum. You won’t regret it.

      Best deal you’ll ever get…and for the tight people out there, there’s a refund if you don’t like it.

      And no; I’m not connected to the opinion site but I have been a member of the forum since it started.

  6. jenny
    June 9, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Unfortunately and disgracefully, everything you say is true.

    This whole child protection thing has got completely out of hand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.