Clarification from Jeff Marshall – updated
The other day I wrote a post about Mail reader Jeff Marshall's comment re Barry George being acquitted.
A 'Jeff Marshall' has today kindly clarified this remark in the comments on my blog post. Didn't know he was such a fan of The Enemies of Reason, but there you go. Here's what he says:
Let me make it clearer then.
I'm in favour of the death penalty and if we had it we wouldn't have weirdo George back on the streets of West London bothering yet more women.
Our justice system would be a lot more use to us if it were prioritised to make the streets safer, one way or another - instead of concerning itself with the occasional miscarriage of justice against those we would be rather better off without anyway.
Reintroducing the death penalty would also relieve some of the congestion in our prisons, enabling more effective justice and better protection for society.
By the way, I'm surprised the Mail put my comment on too. I put it on largely to see if they would.
As a final note, I find your puerile use of the word of the word 'cuntery' far more shocking than my comment, for some reason.
Well, that makes it clear, then. Thanks Jeff.
*update*
I think everyone's had their say now, including Jeff. As I suspected, when you give a troll a bit of rope they inevitably hang themselves - but Jeff would know all about the rope, given the fact he's happy to hang a few mentally ill people if it makes the streets safer.
Interesting that he used the term 'no great loss' when referring to the possibility of George being wrongfully killed by the state; it's very resonant with Richard Littlejohn's statement about the Ipswich prostitutes, the one that made even most right-wingers detest him. But that's the kind of chillingly callous view towards other human beings that you see time and again from the far right.
I don't mind if things stay on topic but Jeff blethering on about drug dealers and how the police can't do anything isn't anything to do with the original subject and veers towards this being the Jeff Marshall Show. I don't see what point he's trying to make vis-a-vis the original argument. This isn't Jeff's blog so I'm afraid won't be letting any more off-topic stuff through on this thread; should he want to make those statements he's more than welcome to do them on his own blog, if he has one, at his own leisure.
Now let's talk about swearing. This is a blog with swearing in it. That's made very clear very early on. Some people like it; some people object to it, and that's fair enough. But once again, it's my blog, and I'll swear if I want to. Some things make me feel like swearing, and rather than re-code them in language that won't offend my auntie, I'd rather just express myself as I see fit.
Jeff claims to be offended by swearing. Then what's this, from a comment by a "Jeff Marshall" trolling someone else's blog?
No, the reason they're here is not because they are either useful or skilled. It's because the Labour government made the mistake of giving British passports to the parents of such people when ex-colonies such as theirs were granted independence. So, what with – first – the unfortunate legacies of Empire and - more recently – our being trapped inside the legal mechanisms of the European Union, forcing this small, overcrowded island to accept even more immigrants, it has basically been one f*** up after another.
The asterisks don't save you, my friend. Because you were so angry at immigration, that made you feel like swearing, so you did. So I don't think that you can really jump on the high horse and pretend that you're involved in classical debating on teh interweb, can you?
I suppose you're the same Jeff Marshall who stood for the BNP at the recent London elections. Given those comments about immigration, and your hateful disregard for human life, it would seem to be a logical conclusion anyway. Now I'm certainly not a 'no platform' left-winger; I think you lot should be allowed the widest publicity possible, just to expose what you really think about things and to show the public what you really stand for. You have hidden for too long behind censorship, bleating on about how you're not allowed to say stuff - let's get it all out in the open so everyone can hear your evil and disgusting policies once and for all.
However, I don't think my blog's the place to do it. I wanted to use your clarification because I think it showed exactly what you thought of Barry George - and I think that's fair that you had the right of reply. But I won't be letting through any more off-topic stuff on this thread; for one thing, I'm sick of the sound of your voice; for another, I just know that this kind of attention is feeding your gigantic ego. I have allowed you to have your say and to respond to criticism.
But now it's time for you to fuck off out of my blog for good.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
August 6th, 2008 - 11:01
So, calling for the death of a man on the basis that he is “weird” is apparently not as offensive as the use of the word “cunt”.
Because, you know, one just kills a man on the basis of a pathetic subjective value judgement, but the other is RUDE and OFFENSIVE.
Why wont you THINK OF THE CHILDREN Anton, you VILE potty-mouth?
August 6th, 2008 - 11:36
Our justice system would be a lot more use to us if it were prioritised to make the streets safer, one way or another – instead of concerning itself with the occasional miscarriage of justice against those we would be rather better off without anyway
Translation: I don’t give a fuck if they did the crime they were accused of or not, if they were ever troublesome in any way then they deserve to die.
Jeff, you are a credit to the human race, you really are.
(yes, sarcasm)
August 6th, 2008 - 11:46
I have to know what Jeff’s reason is for finding the word ‘cunt’ more objectionable than wishing the state had executed an innocent man.
That’s got to be one stonking good reason right there.
August 6th, 2008 - 12:15
“I am more offended by a swear word than the execution of people who are innocent of the crime of which they are accused”.
With this display of a stunning lack of humanity or sense of justice, would it be fair to presume that Jeff is some kind of psychopath, and thus first up against the wall should his preferred ‘justice’ system ever be instituted?
August 6th, 2008 - 13:07
It would be inaccurate to say that I wish the state had executed Barry George.
All in all, I would not have wished George to be killed merely for being a stalker, a menace to women and an all-round piece of low-life (this is what I meant by 'wierdo', by the way, rather than just a harmless eccentric).
However, arguments over the death penalty quite often revolve around the possibility – or likelihood? – of the occasional wrongful conviction & the subsequent impossibility of correcting such an error once a person has been executed.
At least if people are merely gaoled they can, if necessary, be released & compensated runs the argument.
If we do restore the death penalty, of course, there is bound to be the occasional error.
Nevetheless I would say the benefits of doing so would outweigh the disadvantages.
And in my view the loss of an individual such as Barry George would have been – well – no great loss to society.
I am a bit puzzled by the shock & horror expressed on this site by the mere expression of such a view.
If you disagree – as you probably do – you have only to say so.
The unnecessary use of swearwords, on the other hand, is unpleasant – although it's your site, of course, and you have a perfect right to cover it with swearwords if you wish.
If I don't like it then I always have the option of not looking at it.
August 6th, 2008 - 13:52
A quite classic example of the belief in right wing circles that an evil advocated in a good mannered statement is better than a good advocated using off colour language.
It’s not actually a hypocritical position, though it is distinctly disturbing.
August 6th, 2008 - 14:38
Nevetheless I would say the benefits of doing so would outweigh the disadvantages.
And in my view the loss of an individual such as Barry George would have been – well – no great loss to society.
Do you not see the fundemental injustice in this statement?
‘So he was found guilty and we killed him, then he was found innocent. Oh. Our bad. Nevermind, he wasn’t a pleasant chap so it’s okay.’
When you shrug your shoulders at someone being murdered, no matter what they’re past convictions, then you reach the same level as a vigilante, and that’s not a good place to be.
When you shrug your shoulders at someone who was later found innocent of the crime you murdered them for, that’s just wrong.
(All IMO of course)
August 6th, 2008 - 15:11
Jeff Marshall, Master of Consistency.
“I’m in favour of the death penalty and if we had it we wouldn’t have weirdo George back on the streets of West London bothering yet more women.”
“It would be inaccurate to say that I wish the state had executed Barry George. “
August 6th, 2008 - 16:59
Good God, did a human being of sound mind really just right that? It does not take a genius to figure out that Mr George has been suffering from mental health issues and regardless of his previous offences is in need of help not execution.
To describe him as no great loss is one of the most heartless, thoughtless and uncompassionate statements that I have ever read, up there with Littejohn’s ramblings about the victims of the Ipswich serial killer.
I also am not a fan of the word cunt but to try and compare the use of any word with the potential killing of an innocent man in terms of offensiveness frankly puts you in the same category as Mr George.
In need of help.
August 6th, 2008 - 18:50
Jeff, you’re a cunt. If you find that more offensive than the prospect of an innocent person being executed because of your ridiculous lust for the death penalty, you can fuck off.
August 6th, 2008 - 20:25
“Jeff, you’re a cunt. If you find that more offensive than the prospect of an innocent person being executed because of your ridiculous lust for the death penalty, you can fuck off.”
I find it mildly ironical, Anton, that the core of your complaint against the Mail Online was that they don’t seem to have much notion of – what was it? – post moderation.
I wonder if you really think the comment from the septic, spotty youth above is an acceptable way to express disagreement.
It is no more than abuse.
You’ll be competing with Lancaster Unity next – putting up that sort of rubbish.
It is a great shame the young are not taught better manners these days. Politeness and morals do actually go together, however ‘right wing’ that may sound – since both involve possessing and showing respect for others as well as oneself.
August 6th, 2008 - 21:05
Akela said…
"I also am not a fan of the word cunt but to try and compare the use of any word with the potential killing of an innocent man in terms of offensiveness frankly puts you in the same category as Mr George.
In need of help."
I’m not sure that George is in need of help – unless you believe all criminals & sex offenders are. He is a menace to local women.
However my main point is that I don't think our justice system should really be congratulating itself on having set such a man free.
Someone else complained of vigilantism – but the forces of law & order in our society are no longer fit for purpose.
Since they are not, what alternative is there to vigilantism?
I have just received a letter from someone living in West London who complains:
"I live in C. where a playground at a centre for small children is being used as a hiding place by a C. High Street drug dealer.
The Lib Dem/Conservative C. council are aware of this, as are C. Police who are doing absolutely nothing despite CCTV evidence and complaints from parents.
If they will not do anything to stop this dealer putting small children at risk, who will?
The dealer comes to C. simply to sell drugs. [Details of his appearance and vehicle, a silver BMW, follow.]
Following complaints the police simply have a word with the dealer who will just avoid the playground for a while then resumes his activities.
Local people are terrified of the man who has been seen threatening locals including women.
He has boasted that he "owns" the police. Indeed he has been seen threatening and intimidating PCSO's, beat officers and street safety wardens.
Local people and parents are at our wits end. The residential area of **** Terrace, as the dealer’s ‘office’ is “out of bounds” to local people, as is the bus stop used by the dealer, despite it being the main bus stop for C.
People who refuse to move on are violently threatened or attacked.
It is not true [as the Police claim] that he is ‘under investigation, so therefore he will be stopped from potentially harming children very soon.’
This has been going on for far too long. The Lib Dem /Conservative C. council should be ashamed of themselves."
What kind of society is this where police and politicians cannot keep order or curb dangerous criminals?
Nobody cares – least of all the screaming liberals on this site.
Yet we are all supposed to feel pleased & relieved that a piece of vermin like George is back on the streets.
What sort of priorities are these?
August 6th, 2008 - 23:04
OK, I’ve been hanging around teh internets long enough to know not to feed the troll, but just for my own personal satisfaction I’m going to assume that Jeff is really as abominable as he claims to be, and explain it one more time. After this, I promise feeding time is over for me.
Admittedly, I’m not exactly the only person here to point this out, but heigh ho.
You see Jeff, the reason why you are being insulted like this is because you think the ‘occasional error’ resulting in the loss of ‘an individual’ who is ‘no great loss to society’ is OK.
The emotive language being used to quite correctly describe you as a ‘cunt’ (although I would prefer ‘long streak of piss’) is to deliberately counterpoint the way in which you use detached language to try and distance your words from what they mean: the callous desire to destroy human beings on the grounds of them not being of great value to you. There’s no other way to read your comments, as you are clearly not concerned with whether justice is done or not, or whether someone has actually committed a criminal act.
You don’t get to win by being condescending. You have to earn the right to condescend to others through the strength of your character or argument and you have clearly got neither.
I’m going to try a bit of condescension myself now, as it happens, because frankly you deserve it. I have worked with prisoners, some of them juveniles serving life tariffs. A lot of them were dangerous people, and as far as I know they were all guilty of the crimes they were sentenced for. But they were in prison because they had been sentenced for a specific criminal act or acts, and not because they were ‘weird’, however you want to retrospectively define that.
You know what Jeff? They weren’t animals, they were still people. And I’ve met people at least as fucked up as them who have never been to prison. Because a criminal justice system is about trying people for specific criminal acts they may have committed – that’s what makes law what it is, rather than mob rule. Do you understand? Not killing people is not a matter of a whim to be traded against whether you think they fit a checklist of a socially responsible person.
People are generally not all good or bad, you know. There’s a quote from Solzhenitsyn that seems appropriate now (and since you’re a right-winger he should be right up your alley) “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” (apparently it’s from the Gulag Archipelago, the book everyone’s pretending to have read at the moment). Do you see, Jeff? Do you see what I’m getting at? Do you?
Your version of justice is no justice at all, it is all miscarriage. And it really shouldn’t be hard for you to see that.
Phew, I feel better now. Glad I got that off my chest. I could probably have done that better just by writing ‘JEFF DOESN’T GET IT’ though.
August 6th, 2008 - 23:46
You are full of middle English shit.
August 6th, 2008 - 23:50
You know what Jeff, you’re basic sentiment is “it’s okay to get it wrong sometimes cos at least we get it right most of the time”.
Given that we’re talking about the death penalty here I think it’s disgusting that you can cheapen a man’s life like that, nevertheless it is your opinion.
Let us hope for your sake that if you’re ever pulled into court charged with a murder you didn’t do, that they don’t give you the death penalty.
I suspect that if you were wrongly murdered then later proved to be innocent, some would say that you are “no great loss to society”.
August 7th, 2008 - 01:07
Kieran said…
“The emotive language being used to quite correctly describe you as a ‘cunt’ (although I would prefer ‘long streak of piss’) is to deliberately counterpoint the way in which you use detached language to try and distance your words from what they mean”
It is called making an argument instead of just indulging in cheap abuse. The comparison with the flaming Red website, Lancaster Unity, was appropriate, I think. The height of erudition there is to say ‘well, fuck off then’ to anyone whose views they disagree with.
Left wingers, naturally.
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” (apparently it’s from the Gulag Archipelago, the book everyone’s pretending to have read at the moment). Do you see, Jeff? Do you see what I’m getting at? Do you?”
Russians, eh? It sounds well, but it’s no basis for a justice system.
English empiricism will serve us much better methinks. The evil heart, if you like, is revealed by the deed. Without the deed (and evidence of it) the intention doesn’t really matter. Even after the deed, we needn’t worry too much about – what was it? – the ‘line dividing good and evil cutting through the heart of every human being.’ It all sounds highly conjectural anyway.
Personally I would leave final judgements about hearts etc. to God.
Meanwhile, though, we should try to get dangerous people off the streets as far as possible.
That will be quite enough to be going on with.
By the way, I wonder why the likes of l.liver believe it ‘middle English shit’ to want to have safer streets.
One day I suppose he’ll grow up and have children of his own, instead of merely being one.
Then he may feel differently.
August 7th, 2008 - 08:49
What the fuck has a story about a drug dealer got to do with the state executing or not executing Barry George for a crime that he did not commit?
August 7th, 2008 - 10:31
Here here.
It seems that Jeff is quite intent on leading us away from the basic issue in that he would prefer a justice system where a man not guilty of murder would have been executed.
No one is saying the police or criminal justice system is perfect, far from it. That does not however justify vigilantism or the death of a man for a crime he did not commit.
I think it quite entertaining that you say that intention doesn’t matter without the deed and then refer to leaving judgement to God. Your misunderstanding of Christianity on that point is laughable.
And the point about refering to middle England is because of how typical your views are in terms of Mail and Expess readers, papers which bang on ad nausium about middle England.
August 7th, 2008 - 10:32
Jeff, it’s painfully evident from your avoidance of argument, horribly general ad hominem ‘attacks’ (you’re a child, as you disagree with me! You MUST BE!), your viewing of the world as a homogenous mass of LEFTIES!! vs the Sensible, Polite Right and apparent lack of desire to actually engage in the finer points if your ‘proposal’, that you really have no place even attempting to make such statements that you want to be taken seriously.
That is in itself ad hominem, for which I apologise. But please, do try and argue properly, and so will I.