Langton House: Setting The Record Straight.

If I took the time to address every false story concerning the The Needle or myself, then I would have no time to deal with the more important issues that most readers would rather I looked at. However, occasionally, something is written elsewhere which needs to be addressed.

Over the last nine months, I’ve become rather used to coming under attack and, in that time, I’ve been able to group these people into three categories. The first is a small group of people who will go to any lengths or depths, tell any lie, or hack any computer in their attempts to undermine and discredit me and other bloggers who take a similar view to myself with regards to child abuse in this country over the last four decades. Their aim is to drive people like myself offline and away from the debate, their motives are unclear but certainly questionable.

The second group I consider to be genuine people who have just been duped by the first group.

The third group are frankly those that should know better.

It is important to make these distinctions, though sometimes it is difficult. I mention this because the author of two blogs which have made some allegations over the weekend falls comfortably into the second category. She is a genuine person who has a long track record of campaigning against child abuse that pre-dates the Savile exposure by many years.

I first became aware of the allegation when a comment was left on the Langton House thread, it read:

“I happen to know that this has neither sanctioned, nor permitted, nor accurate, nor possible for the person named and, bullied by you, to comment.”

In the context of the thread it was clear that the ‘you’ this person was referring to was Chris Fay but the exact nature of the allegation was unclear. There were then a number of ping backs from this lady’s blog. Following these back, the allegations appeared to claim that a former resident of Langton House had been in contact with this lady and had made a number of complaints about Chris Fay and The Needle. Now, I must confess it has not been crystal clear exactly who this person believes has contacted her, but my best guess is that it is the author of Langton House: Steven’s Story.

I have tried to contact the owner of these blogs. I have left messages on both of her blogs and I have emailed her. ‘Steven’ is obviously not the former resident’s real name and I suggested that if she replied with this person’s real first name, we could then verify that the person who had contacted her was indeed ‘Steven’ and not someone pretending to be ‘Steven’. Sadly, this is one of the underhand tactics that has been employed in the past by the first malicious group of people I mentioned earlier. I must tell you that I have not received a reply to any of these attempts at contact.

Today, we have spoken with ‘Steven’ and he is understandably upset and extremely angry. He has passed this message to us

I can confirm at no time have I ever sanctioned any articles outside of The Needle and at no time have I ever been bullied by Chris Fay. I gave my permission for the article to be posted and I have never asked for it to be taken down.

For my part, I’m a little disappointed the blog owner, who as I’ve said has a long track record of campaigning against child abuse, should not have approached us to verify the story before going public. These kind of altercations do nothing to serve the interest of survivors of child abuse and only serve to achieve the ends of a small but well-organised group who appear to wish to divide genuine people and distract us from the real issues.

If this blogger is referring to someone other than ‘Steven’ then I would urge her to contact me so that we can straighten this out. At this stage I consider this entire affair to be an unfortunate misunderstanding but if another former resident has contacted her with a complaint about this blog then I hope that she would get in touch so that we can make things right as soon as possible but in all candour we can not think who else this lady may be referring to.

If there are any former residents of Langton House reading this who feel uncomfortable contacting us, for whatever reason, could I suggest that they contact DS Dudfield at Dorset Police who is investigating the goings on there.

I’d also like to make it clear that we are rarely asked to remove comments and we have never been asked to remove a post but if someone does ask us then we have always respected their wishes.

As I have said, I and this blog have been under almost constant attack for the last nine months. I hope many readers will not have been aware of that until now but it has come to a point where I think people need to be made aware, as it allows me to explain a few things. The reason why we have to moderate comments here is that there are a group of people who use many different identities and IPs who are continually attempting to post material as comments which could discredit the blog. Some are easy to spot others are not so easy. I am not the only person that moderates comments and occasionally, a comment might get through which should not have done. I would like to apologise if you see such a comment and I ask you to contact me if you see one. On the other hand, it may be that we trash a comment from a genuine person – again if this happens then please accept my apologies, if you are genuine then I’m sure you’ll understand.

Finally, I’d like to make it clear that comments are not my legal responsibility, I moderate only so as not to cause offence to any vulnerable people that visit The Needle. It is the legal responsibility of the author of each comment to ensure that they do not break criminal or civil law.

49 Comments

Filed under Personal

49 responses to “Langton House: Setting The Record Straight.

  1. @gojam some months ago i posted on tom pride blog about the latest exaro news about VIP arrests imminent at the time,, almost from out of nowhere someone appeared on that blog and tried to discredit that post citing MM ,CK,, and CF.as liars..it was particularly vicious and clumsy as others showed it for the nonsense it was, also a few months back i came across another blog ‘artist on trial’ which went to lengths to defend graham ovenden..such lengths as trying to discredit the victims as liars and ‘only in it for the money’..now either they were naive at best or something a lot more worrying…its hard to tell which sometimes..

  2. Dr Tig

    I think the evidence clearly shows systematic grooming of certain bloggers and attempts at discrediting others. We know paid trolls are likely to be involved and it does emphasise the lengths the establishment will go to in preventing the truth being told. Well done to all the brave people fighting for the truth. Btw I will laugh when I get trolled for posting this :)

    • “Two or three weeks later I suddenly received another comment on the Ovenden post from a Mr. Bruce Wagner who pointed out that most of the charges against Mr. Ovenden had been tossed out by the Judge and that he was only found guilty on two charges none of which was concerned with child abuse. Mr. Wagner pointed out that he had begun a blog entitled Artist on Trial for the sole purpose of making public the fact that Mr. Ovenden was absolutely and definitely not a ‘kiddie-fiddler’! In a series of e-mail exchanges, I replied to Mr. Wagner repeating my disinterest in the court action but also saying that Mr. Ovenden was lucky in one respect – that he had a true, staunch and valiant friend in Mr. Wagner!”

      http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2013/05/meet-the-stuckists.html

  3. @gojam here it is again ..anyone care to tell me wtf is going on here?
    or did people forget this pervert contributed to a known paedophile magazine as did his convicted paedophile publisher?

    http://www.pileup.com/babyart/blog/?p=1498

  4. bloody hell this bruce wagner is posting on any blog to do with ovenden (except here of course) btw good to see needleblog gets mentioned..

    http://takearisknz.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/chidren-in-art-have-they-become-one-of-todays-problems/

  5. nuggy

    as casual observer its very hard to tell who the good guys are

    ive you have come under attack a lot and not from the sort of people i would expect to make such attacks.

  6. this comment from the takearisknz.com site..

    same site bruce wagner posted on..

    “peterhoo
    April 9, 2013 at 11:01 am #
    ******Tom O’Carroll’s post is frank and calls a spade a spade. (!!!!!!!!)****

    It is my view the power of the state is being used/appropriated by a group inside society to make the world be the way they want, and the methods they are deploying bypasses genuinely democratic processes, Ovenden and Nolan are examples of this process where their work has been ‘taken down’. For me this is of deep concern. I believe we have a group inside our societies who are focused on the erasure of pedophile culture, and perhaps the pedophile himself!”

    “Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    Police are the only art critics who count | Heretic TOC – April 9, 2013
    […] For another view, by Heretic TOC commentator Peter Hooper, see Children in art, have they become one of today’s problems? […]”

    Heretic TOC = Tom O Carroll (Paedophile Information Exchange)
    ie convicted paedophile..

    FKIN UNBELEIVABLE…paedo defenders now?

  7. peterhoo aka peter hooper (http://takearisknz.wordpress.com/)

    “blogs i follow:

    Heretic TOC (TOM O CARROLL )

  8. do you know i have had to report more stuff to well known sites of late? eg dailymotion where videos albeit ‘innocent’ on the face of it showing young girls creepliy being videod and uploaded to sites like this and other image sites on dailymotion..one channel in question being called c*ndyd*lls .tv
    perhaps they were not aware of the photos ive seen where the same very young girls are shown wearing ‘kinky pvc plastic clothing and fishnet stockings’..they look about aged 8 or 9 and usually russian as they have russian sounding names..
    why arent these well known sites more vigilant?

    btw good to see IFW cracking down on a few sites now eg *mgs*c.ru
    another russian image site where amongst the normal photos there is a LOT of disturbing images of children
    and the comments are plain sickening..as well…

  9. Bob, thanks for posting those links, I didn’t know the details of the Ovenden case, just so shocked that the paedo defenders can be such bold faced gutter rats as to defend this:
    1. getting into a bath tub with two girls asking one girl to wash his “john thomas” – no other sexual act
    2. cupping his hands over the clothed chest of the same girl – both these charges (related to events up to 40 years old!) denied by ovenden
    3. two photographs of a girl …who has continued to state she was never touched or mistreated by ovenden
    4. one photograph of another girl with the now famous victorian nightdress and “black stickytape” blindfold – i’ve seen the photo – the blindfold is white, looks like cloth, and appears she could see out the bottom of it easily
    5 and 6. “specimen” charges i don’t understand related to the act of repeated photography – being itself viewed as an indecent act even if the photographs not indecent themselves(???)

    THEY ARE ON AN ALL OUT QUEST TO LEGALISE PAEDOPHILIA.

    Gojam, keep going, don’t let the paedogangsters silence this blog, they try the same tactics with all the anti child abuse blogs, you are absolutly spot on in those three catagories. The evil ones are trying to silence all the victims of instituitional child abuse.

    Incidentally, I found out yesterday that Dr Ludwig Lowenstein (an ex wrestler who used to be one of the darlings of the BBC and accredited media, as Peter Tatchell also is) was involved in the Staffordshire Pindown investigation. Its in the Pindown Government Allan Levee/Barbara Kahan report. No wonder they don’t want any of us to read it. Lowenstein and his creepy friends ganged up on me on Mothers-for-justice for 2 years because I found out and was posting about Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager.

    • Getting back to this Ovenden child abuse that these trolls are trying to make light of. These are the very same trolls that accuse women of child abuse for fighting their corner in the Secret Family Courts to when falsely accused of Parental Alienation Syndrome (invented by Richard Gardner a paedophile psychologist), I had years of absolute hell in the Secret Family Courts, they made my life a living hell, I will never forget what they did, don’t know if I will ever “get over it” either. There were 200 people jailed for “contempt of Court” ie breaking gagging orders in 2005, I suspect most if not all of them were Secret Family Court PAS accused mothers fighting for their right to a family life with their own children, PAS as far as I can see has only ever been used against women.

      • gw

        What makes you think Richard Gardner was a paedophile?

      • @zoompad ive been checking paedo friendly sites for a while now…the bastards hide some of their stuff but i know where to look..

      • Gw, I know who you are as well.

      • Hi Zoompad,

        GW is a friend of this blog as you are. I think he’s just asking a question.

      • gw

        Zoompad – I think you have made an unsubstantiated assertion about Gardner and I think you have made an unsubstantiated assertion about me and given the context, my motives. Care to say who you think I am – only fair isn’t it?

        (this is why I don’t have a blog or twitter!)

      • No I don’t, and I don’t give a toss what you think about fairness. That filthy paedophile Richard Gardner and that other vile toad Underwager are frying in hell.

      • gw

        Zoompad:
        So you can’t give me anything on Gardner, you refuse to disclose my identity despite claiming to know (please go ahead I don’t have much to hide, and yes these are my real initials.). You refuse to substantiate your claims and your wild assertions and more or less every post you make is an attempt to turn the topic being discussed into your rants about your treatments in family courts. You are ammunition for those that would seek to discredit and undermine efforts to expose these scandals. Normally I can’t be bothered with silly arguments over the internet however you have unfairly seeked to discredit me. I’ll leave it there.

      • @gw i dont no much about family courts but enough to know the damage they inflicted on people and if threatened with imprisonment to shut one up..then i am sure it would leave a huge mark upon that person that would certainly linger..go easy gw..please..

  10. Mr. ‘Bobchewie’ appears to be somewhat over-excited but precisely over what I cannot be bothered to investigate – I have enough troubles dealing with my own occasional blog punch-ups. However, he kindly linked to *part of* one of my blog posts on the subject of the artist, Mr. Ovenden. Lest anyone else becomes over-excited let me point them to my original post in which I made clear that my only interest in Mr. Ovenden was his work as an artist and the ridiculous responses of the various nationalised art gelleries which used to show his work.
    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2013/04/art-andor-the-artist.html

    • Hi David,

      Is Ovenden known for his paintings of young girls just as Stubbs is renowned for painting horses ?

      An artist invites the viewer to see something through his or her eyes. In this case the viewer is being invited to look at images of young girls through the eyes of a convicted paedophile.

      Many might question the motives of anyone who took an interest in that.

    • thats why you have people that defend his actions go and comment on your site then is it?

      • gw

        I read the article on David’s website linked to and thought it was a perfectly reasonable one – the emphasis is on art rather then CSA. Which is completely fair enough – different blogs cover different topics and with different angles. Yeah people have posted pro-ovenden stuff on his comments (from my brief skim it was two posters) but I would assume that many bloggers post things up as a catalyst for BTL debate?

      • @gw it depends on who is saying what and why isnt it? lets be honest here, there are ‘strange people in certain places’ who are out to disinfo the story…and i am not getting paranoid as myself and others have fallen foul of that concerted effort to derail things…as i say theres a difference between a general albeit emotive discussion and just plain discredit/disinfo…and i for one am none too happy from stuff i’ve seen so far. Anyone who pops up on almost everyones blog about a certain subject attached to people in high places ..and repeats the same old rehearsed stuff sorry but i dont regard that as innocent.

  11. Anyone may post on my blog, subject to generally accepted rules. My only interest in the Ovenden case was the nonsense that the moral/immoral proclivities of an artist should be the deciding factor in whether or not his paintings should be displayed. Some of Hitler’s work was naïve but charming!

    • @david duff even though Ovenden is a paedophile (he contributed to a known paedophile publication along with his ‘publisher’ lawrence stanley a convicted paedophile who went on the run till he was arrested in brazil after selling child porn online (he also contributed to same paedophile publication as ovenden)..so thats ok with you is it? having someone. (mr wagner) who also contributes for a paedophile friendly blogsite…

  12. gw

    Bob I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. David has written a blog post about the merits of taking down art because of the activities of the artist. This in turn attracted attention from this Wagner bloke. It is quite obvious that, in his own words, David has “no interest” in “court action”. I’ll let him defend himself but that is my 2p

    • @GW really? you think that..hmm well when mr wagner who went out of his way to write a blog defending ovenden and then show up up on more than a few blogs that mention ovenden including one or two blogs that support perverts from bloody P.I.E i beg to differ..molehills? i think not..

      • gw

        Mr Wagner clearly has his opinions. I do not think they are shared by David. You are probably right that Wagner (whoever he is) may have some relationship with Ovenden. But because he has posted on David’s blog does not involve David in anyway – this all I am trying to say. apologies if I have misinterpreted your posts.

      • @gw my grief isnt exactly with david as such..its being able to spot attempts by people trying to derail matters that are pretty serious enough..

        sorry but those bastards are out there and they exist….
        am also getting fed up with ”these so called victims are all liars and only in it for the money” shit…victims suffer for many years whilst the famous abusers go on and have a life..being famous and earning..

  13. ask yourself this question: how many people contribute to blogs defending people charged with CSA crimes that hardly anyone has heard of? i am guessing its close to zilch unless they are related to the ‘charged person’ so why do people go to such lengths to defend someone with a famous name then? is that fair? and lets not forget a certain high profile person who collected ovendens ‘artwork’..or am i being ‘silly’..?

  14. “Maud Hewes, more than a decade after she defended Mr. Ovenden’s work in the 1996 Channel 4 documentary, “For the Sake of the Children,” probably decided to be a witness in the case for a number of reasons, including the ***poisonous atmosphere surrounding photographs of nude children that now pervades Britain***” (yeah , terrible isnt it, whats the fuss eh? oh wait….)

    “Over the years, British police had accused Mr. Ovenden of a variety of ***trumped up crimes***, arresting him on such ***transparently thin*** charges as “suspicion of conspiracy to indecently assault children”

    “Although Mr. Ovenden’s case is hardly comparable (as Savile) and involved Mr. Ovenden’s son as agent provocateur, the so-called “investigative” methods of the police were the same. Instead of “solving reported crimes” they were “searching for crimes that have not been reported.” (so savile was ‘innocent’ Bruce??)

    “Graham Ovenden was acquitted by the jury of blindfolding his models and subjecting them to a “taste test” during which he was alleged to have indecently assaulted them. These accusations were laid on behalf of all four witnesses, but only two, JB and LD, chose to repeat ***the lie*** at trial. Their stories were disbelieved by the jury, most likely because they were contradicted by circumstantial evidence and mirrored each other so closely, that they ***smacked of collusion***.”

    “The Fabrication of Charges Against Graham Ovenden”

    http://artist-on-trial.blogspot.co.uk/ (aka Bruce Wagner – the guy who contributed his comments to peter hooper (fan and follower of Tom O Carroll .P.I.E)

  15. ‘GW’ defends me splendidly – and accurately! My interest in Ovenden is restricted to the treatment of his art. However, I do have a slight connection to a paedophile whose past proclivities were unknown to me until they suddenly appeared in the prints. I didn’t know him well but from the little I did know I liked him very much. On hearing the news I wrote to him and said, in effect, that as he had done his tiem for his crime it was all blood under the bridge as far as I was concerned. I liked th eguy before, and I still like him now. Mind you, were I to suspect him of continuing his activities I would shop him to the Old Bill in a second.

    None of us have any control over the fall of the genetic dice but all of us are tested by inherent sexual drives, perhaps, next to eating and drinking, the most powerful drives in human nature. If you are unlucky enough to be prone to sexual desires frowned on by others then truly you can think that life’s a bitch! If you give way, then you will be punished and rightly so. However, there are equal and even worse crimes committed by those with impeccable sexual habits!

    (Sorry if there are any typos in the middle of this comment which, irritatingly, is covered by my details and thus I cannot see what I am typing.)

    • @David on here we have testimonies from victims and seen videos eg ‘the hunt for britains paedophiles’ on youtube which is pretty gut wrenching stuff..maybe you should take time to watch all three episodes then come back to us..
      sorry but you wont find much sympathy here for those disgusting perverts..cant feel sympathy for a psychopath..or their appeasers..thats pretty much how i am and also quite a few here..

      • Just so amazed at the bold brazenness of paedophiles, Underwager and Gardner taught them to be bold and brazen it out, and just look at the results.

  16. You paedophiles are living the life of Riley right now, you think yourselves untouchable, but one day you are going to remember these conversations, and wish with all your hearts and souls that you had repented. The Lord is coming back, you know its evil what you are doing.

    • @zoompad i admire your courage and determination, the nonce protectors do exist, they confuse others into thinking no harm was done and a big fuss about nothing..and all this stuff wouldnt be happening if it wasnt for these ‘victim’ troublemakers..bollocks to that..

  17. ” However, I do have a slight connection to a paedophile whose past proclivities were unknown to me until they suddenly appeared in the prints. I didn’t know him well but from the little I did know I liked him very much. On hearing the news I wrote to him and said, in effect, that as he had done his time for his crime it was all blood under the bridge as far as I was concerned. I liked theguy before, and I still like him now. Mind you, were I to suspect him of continuing his activities I would shop him to the Old Bill in a second.”

    well that speaks volumes dont it? ”oh it was all those years ago’ and hes been a good boy now” he wont re offend (have you checked re offending rates?)

    what about the victims who have had to live with those abuses done to them?
    obviously never thought of that now did you..