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.
TheOpinionSite.org 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. TheOpinionSite.org 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 TheOpinionSite.org 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 TheOpinionSite.org 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 safari-uk.org 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 Safari-uk.org newsletter HERE)