And just to show that even the wealthiest of peers of the realm can’t rewrite history this is the source of the wikipedia quote which has been deleted from his entry.
LONDON BOOKSELLER Bloomsbury Book Auctions is today selling off Lord McAlpine’s former collection of photographs entitled A (Very) Private Collection: Fashion and Eroticism Photographs 1970-1990. For some reason the auctioneers coyly refer to “an historic collection… put together in London… by a well-known but anonymous collector”. Could their coyness have anything to do with the fact that the 344 pictures include 10 snaps of very young girls in very suggestive poses by Graham Ovenden?
“We were aware of the possible intentions in the context of this field but came to the decision that Graham Ovenden’s photos were in no way offensive,” says organiser John Cumming.
My source tells me the ” wellknown but anonymous collector” is former Conservative Party Treasurer Lord McAlpine, who in 1996 gave his photographic collection to an Australian gallery which in turn sold them on to Bloomsbury Book Auctions.
John Cumming is more circumspect: “We are selling a private collection.”
Evening Standard [London (UK)] 23 May 2003
Apologies, Link is restricted access but I assure you the quote is accurate.
theneedleblog 
that wikipedia quote was deleted becuase it didnt meet wiki guidelines, which are super strict for biography. there is no conspiracy. nobody got payed. the info is being added back. which you could have done yourself, you know, if you bothered to spend an hour or two learning wiki syntax.
oh wait, you dont have an hour? then, well, i have to assume you dont care about the issues. etc etc blah blah blah. look, someone has to care about whether things are accurate or not.
or should i say, the portion of the info that was accurate is being added back.
the original quote was to a different article which had incorrect information…. in other words, NSW gallery was the seller not McAlpine himself. thats a problem because what if NSW added to or modified the collection it sold? How do you know, for sure, which items McAlpine donated? how do you know he ever owned ovenden? im not saying its impossible, im just saying, wheres the evidence?
I’d love to wipe that f****** filthy smile of he’s face!!!!!
This geezer McAlpine is really taking the piss the police advice to get rid off he’s private collection of child pornography of young underage boys and girls and then the news papers write that he’s squeaky clean, the mystery hear is why the police didn’t look at his private collection the he is selling off, if this is not a piss take, wtf is ?!
Pingback: Artist Graham Ovenden accused of being a paedophile | Global Conspiracy Book - David Icke Biggest Secret
The commoners buy their smut at the newsagents, and the lordy lordy doo’s buy thousand dollar “Art” works! They like their stiffener’s, in gold frames not a plastic bag under the counter, so much more respectable, put anything in a gold frame & you can call it art ! never a moment of thought on sexual & intellectual domination of a minor, heaven forbid ! No way he’s a LORD ! he would never show ANY interest in power over others ! especially little girls ! He’s such a sexy specimen with stunning good looks and a taught & trim six pack toting body,adult women must be chasing him night & day, why would he need such maladjusted relationships in the first place ? His work in the “Dune” movie playing the Baron Harkonnen was terrific also , One should leave one alone ! he needs to wipe the sticky stuff off before the auction.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/topless-teenage-moss–is-it-art-20130208-2e3th.html
You’re Right Michael M, He’s not. An art collector, nothing wrong with that.
McAlpine is definitely not a Paedo… I know this because he said so and he is a Lord and Lords are nice people and do lots of charity stuff.
yer a manky awll scum bag and pedo filth lordy dadaddodoyer times up and a hope ye huve a masive stroke in the bog ya prk
A man who is used to acting in one way never changes; he must come to ruin when the times, in changing, no longer are in harmony with his ways.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli. Hopefully this will come true one day!
But in the mean time he is right royally taking the piss.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=george%20monbiot&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CFUQqQIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fmedia%2F2013%2Fmar%2F12%2Fgeorge-monbiot-libel-lord-mcalpine&ei=m4M_UdThCOWm0QXFtYDIBQ&usg=AFQjCNEWCybxWyuXJ6XNM9EiU11hlSEs0Q&bvm=bv.43287494,d.d2k
Judge a man by the company he keeps, so said Euripides. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.” Guess who said that? McAlpine would certainly know! One of his favourites!
Pingback: Alistair McAlpine Linked Again to Alleged Paedophile Artist Graham Ovenden. - PieReport-News
Nope, not a pedophile. Definitely not a pedophile. Couldn’t possibly be a pedophile. Pure coincidence that he collected photos of naked children taken by a pedophile.
There are some very unpleasant graphic photos by Ovenden. Where were these girls’ parents? Surely, they would not have been happy.
Crick: You’d heard these allegations many years ago at the time of the Waterhouse enqury.
McA: Oh Yes, Ya. And it had been all gone over and really apart from a few people on the internet it had gone away
A man who boasted in his autobiography about manipulating the media. Hmm….Newsnight a preemptive strike with a deliberate skewing of gender preference?
Nah, forget it. As themadlands said, the man is definitely, definitely not a paedophile, even if he did have an art collection which included Ovenden portraits of prepubescent girls.
A flavour of Graham Ovenden’s work
http://bit.ly/YUsI40
Oops …oh, dear …. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/11/graham-ovenden-sexual-abuse-court (can’t be related in any way of course)
So how did he actually show he was not guilty – I don’t remember seeing that bit? He just sued everyone and changed his wiki page. Unless I’m wrong – would be happy to be disabused.
he hasn’t sued anyone yet – the threat was enough!
‘in no way offensive’, but definitely suggestive of finding pictures of naked little girls sexually gratifying to gaze upon. Puh-lease!
Pingback: Lord McAlpine, Nothing Disappears From The Web! « Alternative News Network
But he definitely, definitely is not a paedophile.
What even if you own a collection of erotic pictures of under-age girls? If the artist in question is himself is charged with paedophilia over his behavior towards the models while photographed them naked? http://wp.me/p2QGVg-6e