6 comments
  1. Troyhand said:

    http://richardavick.wordpress.com/tag/stephen-king/
    The World – July 26, 2013
    IPCE AND PEDOPHILES: THE FINAL SOLUTION

    About the Ipce

    The International Pedophile and Child Emancipation forum (Ipce) is an organisation that is almost unbelievable in its beliefs. At least to any grounded, honest person it is. It describes itself as:

    a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.

    The Ipce started in 1989 to fill the gap left by the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which was disbanded in 1984. These organisations, as well as others such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are what I would describe as public fronts for paedophile networks, although that is an educated guess.

    They are incredibly secretive about their membership, which they consider a necessary step to protect themselves. They also tend to maintain a pained attitude about the “judgement” that society places upon them.

    An example of this inferiority complex can be found in an article on the Ipce website where they try to show that they are not so different from “normal people”. The evidence for this is a psychiatric study involving pedophiles and “normal people”.

    Despite their self-proclaimed “normality”, they are so secretive and paranoid about infiltration that they have invented these criteria for new members to fulfill:

    A long term relationship with an existing member (or better two members) for, say, five years or so.

    Having done research, having published articles or books, having made an artistic contribution of having done high profile activism.

    This is similar to the modus operandi of the freemasons, of which my grandfather was sadly a member. The adage that if you’ve got something to hide, you’re up to no good, is well applied to these, and similar organisations.

    Members

    Although Ipce and similar groups have perfected the art of secrecy, PIE was not so versed in discretion, and many members have been exposed. One of the founding members of PIE (later to become a prominent member of Ipce for a time) was Tom O’Carroll. He was convicted in 2006 on two counts of distributing indecent images of children. Having supplied child porn to undercover Met officers from his co-defendant’s vault of 50,000 pornographic images he was sentenced to 2 ½ years, but later successfully appealed.

    In 1980 O’Carroll wrote a book advocating the normalisation of adult-child relationships, called Paedophilia: The Radical Case. He was later invited in 2000 to speak at the International Academy of Sex Research in Paris by Richard Green. Green was the man who got homosexuality removed from the The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). He now works towards getting pedophilia removed from it.

    Another member of the PIE group, whose members I suggest would have largely gone on to join the Ipce, was Stephen King. He set himself up as an expert advisor on sex crimes, advising about the length of sentences as well as other issues to a range of official bodies. He was convicted in 2004 to seven years for 21 offences, including having sex with a ten year old girl. He is presumably now a free man.

    His case is of interest because he did not have a clean record before the 2004 case, while he was advising powerful people. In 1989 he went to jail for 6 months for gross indecency and making indecent material, and was investigated 10 years later over allegations he had sexually assaulted three girls. He also had no formal qualifications in the field of sex crimes, but proclaimed himself an expert on the Children’s Act.

    Did he really fool everyone with his “elaborate deception”, as The Telegraph claims? I would suggest that he was not the only pedophile working within the legal system.

    Pedophile Psychology

    There are differing opinions amongst scholars about the psychology of pedophiles. Professor Glenn Wilson believes that:

    “The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational.”

    Coming from a different angle, Chris Wilson of Circles UK believes that:

    “The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation.”

    The problem with Glenn Wilson’s statement is the word “majority”, which only relates to the group of subjects who were studied, and his use of the word “seem”. As this article has explained, pedophiles are sneaky people, who can “seem” to be one thing, while in reality being something very different.

    Chris Wilson takes a common sense approach.

    However, what is not needed is scholarly debates or research carried out on the subject. The nature of pedophiles is that they infiltrate organisations; They become professors, police officers, doctors, even child psychiatrists. Imagine a debate being held on the subject of pedophilia. How could you know how many pedophiles were involved in the debate? This subject is one which needs a hard line approach of zero tolerance. Pedophiles should be removed from public society, for no other reason than to protect children. This could be achieved by increasing the length of sentences for pedophiles, and not allowing the police cover-ups to continue. Obviously, these solutions are not likely to happen any time soon.

    Real Action

    Bill Maloney, child abuse activist and victim, has initiated a petition to introduce legislation that grants pedophiles amnesty if they come forward to expose other pedophiles. This is an idea that stands a chance of blowing the lid off pedophilia and child abuse.

    If you agree with this approach and want to add your name to the petition, here is the link:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/uk-government-judiciary-introduce-legislation-to-grant-amnesty-for-whistle-blowing-paedophiles
    …

  2. Troyhand said:

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%60Expert'+on+abuse+is+a+pervert.-a0114329699
    Daily Post (Liverpool, England) – March 17, 2004
    `Expert’ on abuse is a pervert.

    Byline: CAROLINE GAMMELL

    AN expert in child pornography who lectured police and criminal prosecutors on how to protect children was jailed for seven years yesterday for subjecting three young girls to “systematic sexual abuse”.

    Stephen King,54,lived a double life, recommending appropriate sentences for paedophiles while at the same time carrying out sexual offences against the three girls.

    He had sex with one girl who was just 10 years old, London’s Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court heard.

    King, of Herne Hill, south London, pleaded guilty to 21 counts including sex with a girl under 13 years,10 counts of indecent assault, six charges of indecency with a child and four counts of taking indecent photographs of a child.

    Judge Fabyan Evans said King, who was credited in the final recommendations in the Court of Appeal for offering advice on sentences for paedophiles, had abused his position as a self-professed expert on child abuse.

    He said: “It was depraved,corrupt and persistent behaviour on vulnerable young girls. You took advantage of three of them, one with learning difficulties.”

    Speaking outside court,Detective Inspector Neil Thompson of the Metropolitan Police paedophile unit said he was happy with the sentence. “Stephen King,in my view, is a devious predatory paedophile who’s preyed on vulnerable children in this country for over three decades.”

    Mr Thompson praised the three girls who came forward and gave evidence and said it had had a “horrendous effect” on their lives.

    The officer made a nationwide appeal for any other possible victims of King to come forward and contact police.

    He also urged anyone who had known King over the years to get in touch.

    Mr Thompson described King as a “self-proclaimed expert on the Children’s Act and pornography -he made it his life’s work”.

    He said King had helped organise conferences for all the criminal agencies across the justice system but had not directly lectured police officers.

    “He has assisted defence lawyers in the past with clients who have been charged,” he said.

    A spokeswoman for the Sentencing Advisory Panel confirmed that King was listed on a 2002 publication which was later adopted by the Court of Appeal.

    She said King had not been consulted in any professional capacity by the Panel. He was one of 39 people who responded to the document as part of a public consultation exercise.
    …

  3. Troyhand said:

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/apr/05/comment.society
    Guardian – 4 April 2004
    Amateurs need not apply
    …
    The newspapers were recently full of stories about Stephen King, a loner who several years ago had, in circumstances which are still far from clear, insinuated his way on to an official working group dealing with child sex abuse.

    Off the back of it King convinced training companies that he was an “expert” on that subject. They started to give him work that brought him into contact with police officers, staff from the Crown Prosecution Service, social workers and so on. From there he started to appear as an expert witness in court cases.

    King’s prospectus turned out to be entirely bogus when, following a routine police investigation into benefit fraud, he was found to be in possession of child pornography.

    This in turn led to the discovery that he had been sexually abusing three 10-year-old girls, for which he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Indeed it also emerged that, under another name, he had a previous conviction for gross indecency.

    On another tack, Jim Wightman hit the headlines when he claimed to have invented software that could detect paedophile behaviour in online chat rooms. No one has ever seen a working version of his software but his website http://www.chatnannies.com looks bright, cheerful and child friendly.

    On closer inspection we see it also has a section specially addressed to paedophiles. It tells them that “none of us can help what we are and are not attracted to sexually” and says that paedophiles are invited to speak to Chatnannies on a confidential basis.
    …

  4. Troyhand said:

    Pornocopia: porn, sex, technology and desire
    Laurence O’Toole
    Serpent’s Tail, 1999 – Education

    [Page 224]

    Though the making of records of sex crimes against children does occur, as recovered videos and photographs demonstrate the amount of evidence brought to trial is not considerable. Legal researcher Stephen King has made a study of the workings of the POCA, the principle anti-child-porn law in Britain, which shows a lower number of prosecutions than one might expect during a period in which child porn has supposedly been on the rise. In the early nineties, the POCA resulted in around forty-two prosecutions per year in the UK. A good third of all police cases are dropped, and will never go to trial.

    One doesn’t doubt that child pornography exists. What one questions is how much there is, and how readily available it is. (It’s certainly not in the sex shops. Issues of availability in . cyberspace will be discussed in the next chapter.)

    In the meantime, the bulk of visible police and judicial activity in the UK concerning child porn actually involves images of a non-pornographic nature – family snaps, naturist images and art-work. This is due mainly to the misuse of a bad law,…

    [Page 238]
    …and placed before a local magistrate, who found that some were indecent and fined him £1,000.
    Photographs from the Cotterill case include a picture of a naked twelve-year-old girl lying on a bed in a modest pose. This picture was considered not indecent in court. There were also pictures of a boy, naked and leaping off a small podium, which were also deemed not indecent.

    Other pictures showing him in the same situation but waving his hands in the air were, however, found indecent by the magistrate. The logic in this is hard to grasp. Differences between all the images in the Cotterill case and pictures of a family on holiday, where the kids are nude on the beach or at play at the campsite, are nonexistent.

    Cotterill appealed his conviction to the Crown Court. The three presiding judges looked at the ‘indecent’ photos, and found none of them actually to be so. It was also declared that Cotterill had ‘legitimate reason for possession of the photographs’. When making art-work depicting children, artists will frequently use photo guides, as it is rare that children will remain still for any length of time. Judge Rubin declared ‘Artists have very good reason for having all sorts of photographs of human beings in all sorts of states of dress and undress.’ 44

    In November 1992, the pen-and-ink illustrator Brian Partridge was arrested under suspicion of taking indecent photographs of children. Suspicion was aroused at a processing laboratory over photos that Partridge had taken of several clothed young girls. The way the children were posed and the fact that their underwear was visible in some pictures had made a lab worker uneasy. A visit to Partridge’s flat in Cheltenham uncovered a stash of photos, including a collection of scrap- books featuring cut-out pictures of young girls taken from various High Street shopping catalogues. In May 1993, Partridge was charged with five offences of taking indecent photos of children between 1983 and 1992. When the legal researcher Stephen King saw these images in court he admits that the question that ran through his head was: “What the hell was he thinking about? What was his motivation.’ King did not feel happy with the images and their drift.
    [Page 239]
    The poses assumed by the child models were of Partridge’s construction. Although permission had always been gained, the parents were not always present during the sessions. No child had complained that any kind of actual contact had taken place, but one had said that she had felt uncomfortable, that Partridge’s manner made her feel ill at ease, and she wouldn’t wish to sit for him again. Partridge faced trial at Gloucester Crown Court in late November 1994 and after one hour’s deliberation was found guilty on two counts. He received a year’s probation.

    Partridge is considered a superb draftsperson. He had previously collaborated on a large art project around the subject of Alice in Wonderland, involving more than two dozen artists including the noted painter and photographic historian Graham Ovenden. During the raid on Partridge’s house, police found work by Ovenden, and by the child photo-portrait artist Ron Oliver, given to him in appreciation of his work. There were also letters from Ovenden. Letters and address books mean a lot to the police. If you believe networking to be an intrinsic part of paedophilia, then they provide a possible way of uncovering a ring. Under the circumstances and considering the
    …

    http://books.google.com/books?ei=84sLU8yHGaXiyAGjiIHwCQ&id=A_FEAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22Stephen+king%22+Crown+Prosecution+Service&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Stephen+king%22

    https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22a+possible+way+of+uncovering+a+ring.+Under+the+circumstances+and%22#hl=en&q=%22porn+has+supposedly+been%22+&tbm=bks

    https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22still+for+any+length+of+time.+Judge%22#hl=en&q=%22remain+still+for+any+length+of+time.+Judge%22+Cotterill&tbm=bks

    http://books.google.com/books?id=A_FEAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Suspicion+was+aroused+at+a+processing+laboratory+over+photos+that+Partridge%22&dq=%22Suspicion+was+aroused+at+a+processing+laboratory+over+photos+that+Partridge%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UZULU8vsDJDksATh8YHoDA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

    http://books.google.com/books?id=A_FEAQAAIAAJ&q=%22A+visit+to+Partridge's+flat+in+Cheltenham+uncovered+a+stash%22&dq=%22A+visit+to+Partridge's+flat+in+Cheltenham+uncovered+a+stash%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2pQLU7faNfLTsASe8YCoAg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA

    http://books.google.com/books?id=A_FEAQAAIAAJ&q=%22images+and+their+drift.+The+poses+assumed%22&dq=%22images+and+their+drift.+The+poses+assumed%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nI8LU7PCHPDlyAG-zoDwAw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

    http://books.google.com/books?id=A_FEAQAAIAAJ&q=%22had+complained+that+any+kind+of+actual+contact+had%22&dq=%22had+complained+that+any+kind+of+actual+contact+had%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8pALU6fsManMsAS55IDQBA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

    http://books.google.com/books?id=A_FEAQAAIAAJ&q=%22again.+Partridge+faced+trial+at%22&dq=%22again.+Partridge+faced+trial+at%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TZELU9zWI8HnsASb6IDYCg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

    http://books.google.com/books?id=A_FEAQAAIAAJ&q=%22During+the+raid+on+Partridge's%22&dq=%22During+the+raid+on+Partridge's%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=95ELU_jnC6rLsATTnoJQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

    https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22she+wouldn't+wish+to+sit+for+him+again.+Partridge+faced+trial+at%22#hl=en&q=%22Ovenden.+Letters+and+address+books+mean+a+lot+to+the%22&tbm=bks

  5. Troyhand said:

    http://old.pbagalleries.com/search/item212554.php?&PHPSESSID=bf11d87cf636cf1abd445509bd31809f

    Heading: zzc(Artists’ Choice Editions)
    Author: Ovenden, Graham
    Title: Acrostics
    Place: [London]
    Publisher: Artist’s Choice Editions
    Date: 2003

    Description:
    Illustrations by Graham Ovenden, decorative borders by Brian Partridge. (4to) black morocco-backed patterned boards. Separate green board portfolio containing two signed prints. Slipcase. Copy no. XI of XXIV Special Copies.
    Signed by Ovenden at the colophon.

  6.  

    Pingback: The Paedophile Information Exchange: Timeline of press cuttings 1975-2014 | spotlight