What’s the Guardian’s agenda on paedophilia?

The Guardian have leapt to the defence of convicted paedophile Graham Ovenden. They say we should forget Ovenden’s crimes against children, and appreciate his ‘art’ ,which includes images of child sexual abuse, on its own merits. The author of the article, Rachel Cooke, says she wouldn’t feel any differently about  Ovenden’s work “even if the children were naked”. Read more

Graham Ovenden

The Guardian’s favourite paedophile artist

This follows on from Jon Henley’s deeply sinister article ‘Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light‘ which was published in the Guardian in January. This article used former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Tom O’Carroll, as a source, and peddled PIE’s old lie about child sexual abuse causing no harm. The article linked to a sympathetic biography of O’Carroll, but failed to mention that he was convicted for possessing 50,000 images and films of child abuse, including children as young as six being raped and tortured.

o'carroll

The Guardian’s favourite child rape enthusiast

The Guardian refuse to cover the Elm Guest House story or any of the other new investigations into historical child abuse such as Lambeth and Kincora.

Most worryingly of all, they won’t cover the Peter Righton story despite being in possession of all the information that has been handed to the current police investigation. This was revealed earlier this year by the source of Tom Watson’s PMQ. The Peter Righton paedophile network preyed on vulnerable children in care homes and schools for decades. It’s a national scandal involving some of the most powerful people in our society exploiting and abusing some of the most vulnerable.

The Guardian used to lead the way on covering child abuse with a series of powerful articles by Nick Davies in the 1990s. When did that change, and why are they priorotising the rights of paedophiles over the rights of abused children?

5 comments
  1. liz davies said:

    Rachael Cooke’s article should never have seen the light of day but she found an easy outlet through the Guardian to express her distorted and disgraceful views. She shows her complete ignorance of sexual crime, the suffering of children and about how the art /music/political world protected Ovenden for so long. It has taken police persistence over 20 years to get this man convicted as well of course as the immense courage of those victims who came forward. I seriously question why Cooke has so risked her own reputation by writing in support of Ovenden’s work. .. but then Jon Henley took similar risks in his Guardian article.

    Why don’t Peter Blake, and the other artists Ovenden mentions , speak out now and clarify their abhorrence for serious sexual crime against children? Now that would make an interesting Guardian article!

  2. She know that these are dirty filthy child rapists evil men, its all an act on her part, she’s is just as bad as these filthy paedophiles are. She’s a libertine at heart I bet. All this bullshit about he’s made great art works, therefore we should all forgive him, she asking that he’s depraved morals should not outweigh his gift of art to man kind.

  3. chess said:

    I only have a few points to make. Most who read Murun etc will hold the same views as Ms Davies and MdB above.
    I do hope that you will replicate your posts on whatever the G has for its ‘letters to the editor’ page/epage.
    Similarly with other MSM ‘readers comments’ pages.
    If you buy the rag, do please stop.
    If you know anyone who buys it, try to persuade them to stop.
    Me?
    Off to do some posting….and I hope that you will forgive if I copy some of your apt phrases, perfect!

  4. I apologise for remaining anonymous for the time being .I am the source of Tom Watson's PMQ on 24th Oct said:

    I would like to fully endorse everything Liz Davies has said above
    I had to count to 10 before I replied and then try and control my tongue
    I was very grateful for you reproducing me communication a few weeks ago with Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, after the Jon Henley article . I had hoped that was a one off by the Guardian and despite Rusbridger’s strong defence of the Henley article privately I suspected they regretted it.
    However with this latest article defending Ovenden you have to question where they now stand on the whole issue of child abuse/paedophilia
    Immediately after I responded to Rusbridger I received an email from David Leigh, their senior reporter challenging me with the question ” surely you are not accusing us of being friends of sex abusers are you”
    I say look in the mirror , difficult now to come to any other conclusion

    • murunbuch said:

      Yes, unfortunately it is hard to come to any other conclusion. It has been pointed out to me that it was the Observer that ran the Rachael Cooke article which has a different editor, but it was on The Guardian website so Rusbridger must also have editorial control.

%d bloggers like this: