“Be careful of ‘googling’ this guy’s work, or you might find yourself charged with viewing child pornography.”

“Dirty old creep. This sick society’s riddled with them.”

“Another so called artist who believes he can do whatever he likes so long as he calls it “art”Hope he is banged up for a long while”

“…his portrait painting had been a ruse to aid his abuse of children.”

“Gross, disgusting, disgraceful man. Those poor children !”

“Strange that he was ill on the day of the verdict.”

“He’s sounds like a loathsome man. He’s typical of many people in the art world ,who think that normal rules of behavior don’t belong to them.”

“Hang on… just what has he been convicted of???… what did he actually do?…. its so nebulous to be untenable…. until you tell us… what did he do? actually?”


  1. cement bambi said on 5 Apr 2013 at 12:03 pm

    At 70 years old, it’s hard to see him recover from this scandal. Even if he does receive a light sentence, his reputation is fucked. Since the Tate has just sealed off his work, other galleries and dealers are likely to follow. Even worse, according to an article he say’s he’s “penniless” after losing his house. Can’t help but feel sorry for him. But what has he done exactly? Good question. It’s all rather vague, involving blindfolds and Victorian nightdresses or something? Apparently, the abuse was so bad that a couple of his victims returned sometime later to have more portraits made!

  2. mr. nobody said on 5 Apr 2013 at 12:58 pm

    I love Graham Ovendens works. I always wished I had more money to be able to afford a copy of his awesome books. It makes me really sad to hear about this. Hate this society we’re living in.

  3. trevor brown said on 6 Apr 2013 at 11:08 am

    Ramsay Quaife told the jury [...] how Ovenden would dress the children in Victorian-style nighties before leaving them naked and blindfolded, then get them to perform what he called ‘taste tests’.
    ‘The defendant would put tape over her eyes,’ said Mr Quaife. ‘She could not see anything. The tape was black, stretchy and smelt of glue.
    ‘Although she could not see, she could hear the defendant and she could remember the sound of his belt buckle.
    ‘The defendant would tell her she would do a taste test and would get 10p for every taste she got right. He would then push something into her mouth . . . he told her it was his thumb.’

    i would guess that was one of the accusations the judge directed the jury to ignore

    what he was actually convicted for is revealed on this page by ottootowski (use a “find” search)

  4. Otto Otowski said on 6 Apr 2013 at 9:09 pm

    The jury disbelieved the “tasting game” story. Why? Because these women came in and claimed to they were alone, blindfolded with black sticky tape and remember the sound of Ovenden’s belt buckle. But the proof sheets show that when they were photographed, the girls were not alone with Ovenden. There was no black sticky tape. Nor did they remember that Ovenden never used a belt but always his trademark suspenders.

    The judge didn’t direct the jury to ignore these accusations. That would have been beyond his powers. He did, however, tell the jury to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to believe that the stories were the product of collusion and, if so, whether to weigh that as a factor in deciding whether the accusations were credible. The jury acquitted Ovenden on those charges.

  5. trevor brown said on 7 Apr 2013 at 9:07 am

    what does emily think of all this? – does she hate her dad now (the same as eva now hates her mum)? – was she called to give evidence?

leave a reply

Required fields are marked *


* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You can follow the discussion through the Comments Feed. You can also Pingback or Trackback from your own site.