Thickness beyond belief (or: Let me answer that one for you)
What do we hope to learn from internet comments below the story of the 'British Fritzl' and his horrific crimes of incest? Well, not a great deal, apart from gaining a sliver of an insight into just how thick some Mail readers are.
I can't even think of what to say I'm so mortified. Why can't he be named. You cannot possibly shame a degenerate like him!
- disgusted, tyneside, 25/11/2008 14:03
He can't be named because that would identify his victims, who are his own daughters. Surely that's not too hard to understand, is it?
Some people are sick. This man doesn't deserve to see the light of day.
"The defendant, from Sheffield, who cannot be named for legal reasons"
What legal reasons? Breach of his human rights? He's not human.
- Natalie, Durham, 25/11/2008 14:09
Er no, but it is to do with human rights - the rights of his victims to live in anonymity. I imagine there have been repeated attempts by newspapers to try and pay for them to waive their anonymity and tell 'their story', but these have been refused.
These evil scum bags MUST be named and shamed!
- alan cornwell, London, GB, 25/11/2008 14:11
No, because then his victims would be identified. How hard can it be to get this?
I'm assuming he can't be named as his victims would then also be revealed, that is the problem. Although he has commited a crime which he should be named for, it is unfair as then everybody will know what has happened to his poor children.
- rebecca, stoke, 25/11/2008 14:27
Finally.
Bidentifying him will identify his two daughters, who were victims of sexual assaults and are therefore entitled to anonymity.
- Louise, London, England, 25/11/2008 14:52
Yes, that's it. Alternatively, the story could simply have explained this in the story to ward off the army of numpties.
"For legal reasons" just doesn't cut it. Its about time we demanded to know exactly what those reasons are.
- Dawn, UK, 25/11/2008 14:59
Er, see above Dawn.
Austria presumably has the same human rights legislation, yet we know the name of Herr Fritzl, and of all the children, his daughter, and most of the extended family.
- tfa, england, 25/11/2008 16:01
*sigh* But it's nothing to do with the Human Rights Act, it's the Sexual Offences Act (I think). And it's there for a good reason. And just because British newspapers decided to name the incest victims in Austria because the law doesn't apply to crimes in Europe, doesn't mean that was right, or fair, or a good thing at all.
Why have a trial for this awful man it's just money down the drain, just lock him up and throw away the key.
- Jennifer, Moreton, Wirral, 25/11/2008 17:11
Jesus wept. Yes, why bother with trials at all? If we think he done it, then he done it.
And all he got was 19 years!!! Why oh why do we allow sub-humans to have human rights?????????
- malarky, ledbury, england, 25/11/2008 18:08
But...
malarky: He didn't get 19 years. The judge directed he must serve at least 19 and a half years before he can apply for parole. The parole applications can take several years after that so he will probably serve more like 25 years - if he survives.
- William J, Plymouth UK, 25/11/2008 18:44
Oh that's a shame, I was hoping for pages of "But 19 years means only three and a half in NuLab Britain!"
why do these animals deserve anonimity
- anthony strike, halifax, 25/11/2008 19:19
Hello Anthony, joined us a little late I see. The reason is that we don't want to identify his daughters and grandchildren.
Yet .... not one of them spoke out ??? !!! Laws offer no protection against criminals being named. According to the 'spinning' media, life's gone totally beswerk since Mandleson & Campbell's return ........
- jean baker, Guildford Surrey, 25/11/2008 20:02
What?
Yet again authority is `none existant`
- Marge simpson, Cheshire, 25/11/2008 20:40
What?
Perhaps DNA testing of all children collecting benefits would help reveal monsters like this, as well as finding the biological fathers who should be financially responsible for their kids.
- Greta, East Grinstead, 25/11/2008 21:00
Simply batshit insane.
Who ever said the most sickening examples of human behaviour weren't in Britain. I guess this case shows Labours Britain is up there with the worst of them !
- Mike, Alicante, Spain, 25/11/2008 21:09
Hooray! Ring the "NuLab blamed for horrific crime somehow even though it began before they even took power" bell!
In these cases of extreme sexual abuse over time there is also a psychological scarring that takes place in the victims which ties them to the villains. External forces need to break the abuse cycle.
Human Rights Act has broken the back of the UK justice system.
- Jack, George Town Cayman Islands, 25/11/2008 22:39
Hooray! Ring the "Human Rights Act blamed for something it has nothing to do with" bell!
probably get a job as a social worker, in new labours britain,
"new labour "they dont have a good track record do they? remember victoria colombia and baby P. sooner judges are elected locally the better.
- Richard, Northants, 26/11/2008 1:00
What? How will that help?
Only a matter of time before UK came up with it's own Fritzl.
What is in the femail brain that lets them live with this?
- hillus, Perth,Australia, 26/11/2008 2:59
Hooray! Ring the "Victims blamed for crimes" bell!
It's just a pity the beast did not get caught speeding he may then have been put away for good sack the social worker and doctors who did nothing when they were suspected it was going on - why are they not doing their jobs it cant all be cut backs and council money shortages it just does not make sense.
- carol bott, hx, 26/11/2008 5:47
What you've done there, Carol, is confuse this case with Baby P, and to imagine that people get put in prison for the rest of their natural lives for speeding. Which actually isn't the case, you'll surely be astounded to learn.
Don't worry. He'll soon have the human rights lawyers on his side ... probably under the auspices of his right to a family life with his nine babies!
- Oliver (ex-pat), Düsseldorf, Germany, 26/11/2008 6:59
Yes, that's ri... oh no. Hang on, he won't. Not in the slightest.
Name & shame them too, I'm sick of reading in cases like these (baby P is another one) that for "legal reasons" the person cannot be named or can't be bothered to turn up in court*. They have seriously damaged other peoples' lives and they are the ones protected, it makes me so cross.
- di, france, 26/11/2008 7:05
Hello Di. Have a look at the other comments. Actually don't. Just blindly submit your witless dribbling goonery without thinking about it in the slightest.
But...
Who ever said the most sickening examples of human behaviour weren't in Britain. I guess this case shows Labours Britain is up there with the worst of them !
- Mike, Alicante, Spain, 25/11/2008 21:09
Interesting but foolish observation MIke, given that this was happening over a twenty year period, perhaps you can rope in Thatcher & Major's Torys as well.
People seem over concerned about the sentance of a MINIMUM of 19 years. Given that he is 56 he will be 75 when he is elligable for parole if he lives to that age.
Surely of greater concern is that he evaded prosecution for so long. How did that happen?
- Anne, Birmingham B3, 26/11/2008 8:49
Ah if only the Annes of this world were actually listened to...
Name and shame him. Lock him up and throw away the key, He never deserves to walk free again.
- louise, suffolk, 26/11/2008 9:36
"Sheffield City Council has announced an independent review into the case, to be conducted by Professor Pat Cantrill. "
Reviews, enquiries, etc.
Another example of cover up to sweep the matter under the carpet to hide the incompetence of those involved in protecting the children.
- Anon, London, 26/11/2008 9:45
Yes, instead of sweeping it under the carpet, we shouldn't have an inquiry at all.
19 and a half years minimum... and then once hes out he will do it all over again! One simple solution to this would be shoot him in the knees! then the elbows and let him bleed! Then remove any body parts that are external and hope he survives
- Danny, Chesterfield, 26/11/2008 10:28
Er, OK.
I would love to go visit him with a base ball bat and tazer, I'll soon, I just hope when he gets inside the inmates give him the punishment he deserves as the system doesn't.
- Karen, Bolton-England, 26/11/2008 11:22
Right. I see. So people are allowed to advocate violence on the Mail's website, and that's OK? So if I said I wanted to go round Richard Littlejohn's gated Florida mansion with a cricket bat and smash his head into a meaty pulp, that would be published too, would it?
I'm guessing not.
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.
November 26th, 2008 - 15:31
It’s like reading exam papers for a GCSE in Fuck-Witted Cuntery.
I’m not sure what’s worse, the people who write this, or the Mail itself for willfully absolving itself of any responsibility for the hatred and vitriol published on its site by pretending that it’s ‘freedom of speech’.
Shame on the lot of them.
November 26th, 2008 - 16:25
Victoria Colombia.
November 26th, 2008 - 17:07
Ah the great British public. Don’t you just love them? For more of the same take a look at the comments on the story about the man sent a joke by 118118 tasteless enough that even Bernard Manning would have winced.
November 26th, 2008 - 18:26
Has Phil Woolas got a job at 118118?
November 26th, 2008 - 22:17
My, don’t you wear your little sliver of media law learning heavily! ‘Look at me, Anton Vowl, I know media law, everyone, because I probably work in some local rag in the middle of nowhere, sinking into a pit of self loathing and have decided to blame all the problems of the earth on the Daily Mail.
Why would you expect tabloid readers to know media law? Of COURSE they’ll say silly things in the heat of the moment, people do.
Now, each morning when you wake up, say: It’s not the Daily Mail’s fault I can’t get a girlfriend. It’s not the Daily Mail’s fault I can’t get a girlfriend. etc. For about, oh, twenty minutes.
Soon, you’ll overcome the obsession and start posting something interesting. Then your dream about having this blog published (‘This guy is just so great, I mean he took it all on, everything, the Daily Mail, man. He nailed it. I mean, do you realise he tells us that the Daily Mail supported Mussolini in 1934. He doesn’t tell us that they later withdrew the support in an editorial in 1935. But still, buy this book, man!’ – Russell Brand in The Guardian) may come true.
November 27th, 2008 - 09:18
Looking forward to your denuncination of the Indian muhajideen’s antics. I mean, like American soldiers, they’re terrorists, maaan. I wonder if we’ll get 500 words of hissy, indignant, adjectivally overwrought prose from you about that? Maybe, just maybe, it’s the Daily Mail’s fault. Ooh yes, because they were bound up in King and empire and all that and that – and poverty, man – is what’s caused all this. So even though they’ve consistently said that the Iraq and Afghanistan lib/left wars were wrong, it’s still gonna be their fault, right, Anton?
Any movement on countries that are more generous and tolerant to immigrants in terms of public policy and welfare munificence than nasty old wacist Britain?
November 27th, 2008 - 10:53
Troll.
November 27th, 2008 - 11:06
I’m pleased to see you can vote down rubbish comments on the Mail’s website now.
Or up if you find any good ones!
November 27th, 2008 - 12:10
What is in the femail brain
Indeed. Isn’t Femail still a section of the Daily Mail?
Looking forward to your denuncination of the Indian muhajideen’s antics. I mean, like American soldiers, they’re terrorists, maaan.
Do you know what you’re trying to say here?
November 27th, 2008 - 12:49
Shorter William Glazy:
“You might say that vigilantism condoned in a national newspaper is a bad thing. But I say: that’s your fault for caring”
What a spectacularly thick troll.
November 27th, 2008 - 14:13
Ooooh, according to his newly-launched ‘blog’ William Gazy works for a big grown-up NATIONAL newspaper.
Oooooooh la-di-fucking-dah.
I’m hoping it’s in the postroom and not the newsroom.
Take a look at his ‘opinion’ of the Indian terrorist attack. If ever a blog was crying out to be written in crayon……
Cock.
November 27th, 2008 - 16:10
Anyone get the feeling the Mr Glazy may be someone who penned somethng that Anton has gone to town on at some point?
I’m intrigued as to his real identity!
November 27th, 2008 - 17:54
It’ll be Andrew Gilligan…
November 28th, 2008 - 00:38
How convenient for you that you have the lexicon of nerdish invalidation to fall back on: ‘If I say the word ‘troll’ I am not obliged to answer anything. I invite people to look around my website, to comment and to ask questions (which I did, which you answered and my answer to your inadequate explanation was then never aired; funny that) and when I get someone actually asking questions – as opposed to my usual tiny clique of purblind admirers and Mail obsessives – I get a bit defensive and I say the magic word ‘troll’ and it all goes away, like magic!’
It’s sort of like Anton’s little version Gramsci’s hegenomic debate.
Also, you know perfectly well that another nerd will now say – ‘don’t feed the troll, man’ and you will have done two things: invalidated me – in the eyes of your coterie – in this thread and set up invalidation permanently because you have introduced to the minds Michael Moore/Trekkie fans hereabouts the idea that I’m a troll, instead of what I actually am, someone who thinks that Anton Vowl’s world of hand-me-down Michael Moore selective moral outrage needs a few questions asking of it.
November 28th, 2008 - 00:56
Troll.
November 28th, 2008 - 01:03
Alex said:
Do you know what you’re trying to say here?
Indeed I do. Anton has been instructed through the works of Noam Chomsky and his many lesser talented acolytes. In this world, Anton’s world, soldiers of every nation (well, predominantly white ones anyway) are simply terrorists with uniforms on. Particularly and especially American soldiers. They – Chomsky and Anton and about 2 million people with pierced foreheads and Ecstasy-blasted brains in Brighton and Bristol – RANT AND RAVE about these terrorists, but get all kind of mealy mouthed and quiet when the terrorists without uniforms, Al Quada types and so forth, go on killing benders and blow people up. You might get a curt ‘yes, obviously it’s terrible’ from them, but then the invective drifts back to. . .the Daily Mail and hating your Nan because she didn’t like the Smiths and voted Conservative. It’s the unpricipledness and hypocrisy of it that annoys. Take Muslims and Islam. Anton is very punctilious about making sober and measured distinctions about Islamists and Muslims. We all know that if Christians were doing anything like this on this scale he would not bother himself to make the distinction – they’d all be shouted down with a great deal of ‘cunted fuckery’ or whatever other sixth-form/Richard CurtisWorld invalidation he likes to use. And it is obvious why, because he hasn’t thought any further on the differences and similarities of white and brown extremism because he’s only interested in making sure he is as politically correct as possible and grinding his own axe – his hatred of his own country and the west (this usually springs from hatred of self, but not knowing Anton I would not wish to speculate on that). This is where the Left has ended up: BNP – unequivocally bad; Osama the fanatical anti-semite and the Women Stoners, um, like, maybe they have a point and I don’t want to look racist, so, um… Instead of growing up and realising that Osama Bin Laden and Nick Griffin are two sides of the same coin and should be raged against in equal measure. The problem with Anton and Chomsky and the Guardianistas is they believe, fatally, in ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. That’s why Anton went to extraordinary lengths about the terror suspect killed when on the run and hiding in the hills of Waziristan. OK, if that’s what Anton wants to write, fair enough. But that large ego of his doesn’t take kindly to criticism.
In conclusion, his daily obsession with the Mail and the Sun and find (white) fascism under the bed shows a certain parochialism on his part, a parochialism and monomania not unlike the Daily Mail’s…
Publish that, Anton, I dare ya. You’ll be fine, because your pals would howl down anyone now.
November 28th, 2008 - 01:06
Troll.
November 28th, 2008 - 01:07
Anton Vowl said:
Troll.
To which I can only say one thing: You are an enemy of reason.
Night night.
November 28th, 2008 - 01:12
Troll.
November 28th, 2008 - 10:30
Yes – it is the sexual offences (Amdendment ) act 1992 as amended by the S O Act 2003
The amended 1992 Act specified matters likely to lead to identification of the complainant as: name, address, school or other educational establishment, place of work or still or moving picture of the person. (McNaes, Essential Law for Journalists)
The Times actually did a very informative sidebar on it, and included the issue of jigsaw identification, which attempts to ensure a variety of newspapers covering the same story do not inadvertantly reveal the identity of the complainant.
Carl Eve
November 28th, 2008 - 11:11
Are there actually 2 million people in Brighton and Bristol together?