Translate

Friday, November 23, 2012

McAlpine admits he owned the Ovenden 'art' collection


An example of an Ovenden painting


Anonymous comment  -

Confirmation from the man himself that he previously owned the Ovenden collection

 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/16/1052885405797.html

A report in London's Sunday Times noted the collection was initially thought to be that of an ageing roue, with an eye for the ladies, who was now desperate for the 100,000 or so pounds the collection is expected to bring.

The paper then received a tip the seller was the prodigious collector and former Tory treasurer, Lord Alistair McAlpine, who is hardly short of a quid.
But while the peer did assemble the collection, seven years ago he kindly donated 700 photographs by the likes of Bob Carlos Clarke, David Bailey, Terence Donovan, designer Karl Lagerfeld and others to the Art Gallery of NSW. It now appears the anonymous collector who is quietly flogging the snaps is indeed our very own art gallery.


The marketing manager for Bloomsbury Book Auctions, which is handling the sale, would not reveal to Sauce the identity of the seller, except to confirm it was an institution rather than an individual.

Despite the art gallery's director, Edmund Capon, being a friend of Lord McAlpine, the peer knew nothing of the sale until contacted by the Sunday Times.


When Sauce contacted McAlpine, who is busy with the upcoming opening of his B & B, formerly a 14th century convent in southern Italy, his lordship was more miffed by the sleazy title.

"I'm not put out, because if they [the art gallery] want to sell something I gave them, that's their business. The fact is, I just think it was very silly to sell these things.


"While they might not seem of great importance to a curator or photographer sitting in Sydney, which isn't the epicentre of the new world, they are considered to be an important collection.
"


McLibel 2.0 

COMMENT -

McAlpine is bluffing.  That's why he's settling for peanuts.

McALpine did not sue Scallwag and has not contacted the Journalists left alive, Simon Stander, Pete Sawyer and Andrea Davison 

http://google-law.blogspot.com/2012/11/mcalpine-did-not-sue-scallywag-why.html 

TAP.

Andrea Davison?  This is all starting to link together.

http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/wasp-on-andrea-davison-and-why-shes.html


JULIA adds -


Brilliant Tap. The picture is getting bigger. I couldn't follow one of the links about Tory's and paedophiles to scallywag. Obviously stuff on there that they don't want us to see.
I wonder who the other two journalists are who are left alive? Simon Stander and Peter Sawyer.

Interesting point I just noticed about the two McAlpines story. The change in identity of the McAlpine abuser that Steve Messham announced recently shifted the blame to the DEAD McAlpine. That's very handy.

My own view is that Steve Messham was almost certainly coerced by some means to change his story. This achieved several things. To save McAlpine, the alive one, to discredit Steve and all other accusers, and to shift the spotlight of blame onto the abused not the abuser.

TAP - I found this piece on Masonic practices, missing out the child murder and rape of course.  But you can read between the lines.



6 comments:

Julia said...

Brilliant Tap. The picture is getting bigger. I couldn't follow one of the links about Tory's and paedophiles to scallywag. Obviously stuff on there that they don't want us to see.
I wonder who the other two journalists are who are left alive? Simon Stander and Peter Sawyer.
Interesting point I just noticed about the two McAlpines story. The change in identity of the McAlpine abuser that Steve Messham announced recently shifted the blame to the DEAD McAlpine. That's very handy.
My own view is that Steve Messham was almost certainly coerced by some means to change his story. This achieved several things. To save McAlpine, the alive one, to discredit Steve and all other accusers, and to shift the spotlight of blame onto the abused not the abuser.

Tapestry said...

Comment came in -

1. it was not an 'ovenden collection', it was a collection of several artists, fashion magazine photographers, etc, including ovenden

2. McAlpine owned a collection, but it doesnt say he owned the exact same works that are being sold by the gallery in question

3. the auctioneers reviewed the works and did not find them 'inappropriate' at the time.

TAP - inappropriateness or not is in the eye of the beholder.

Anonymous said...

The above work is a photograph of a model named Lorraine. It's not child pornography either. It's from a published book, published legally in the United States. This has NOTHING to do with child abuse.

Anonymous said...

Lorraine had to have 4 years counseling for graham messing her head up he did abuse me and you will see the truth the court case starts again on march the 6th at turo court Cornwall may god forgive you for your doubting us

Anonymous said...

... and now Ovenden has been convicted of indecency with children. Now that the law is finally catching up with the paedophile pornographer Ovenden, I recommend that you ought to delete that sample of his kiddie porn currently displayed at the head of your article. I realise that you're not showing it for paedophile reasons, but kiddie porn is kiddie porn and you can get into trouble for publishing it.

Tapestry said...

I chose the least offensive/suggestive examples that I could from those available. Do you think readers are offended?

I think of the paedophile victims first. They are always stifled. Yet their story needs to be told again and again and again.