Is it only me who see's him as a dead ringer for Enoch Powell?

After the first story about this monster, I haven't been able to bring myself to read past the headlines - it's all too grotesque.

I felt tha same as Daphne, hard to read the whole story.

David

Mr Fritzl served only 18 months in prison for raping a 24-year-old nurse in Linz in 1967 that he threatened with a knife. The judge pronounced the lenient sentence because Mr Fritzl had four children. Noone from the legal brothels he frequented bothered to report him either though apparently the prostitutes were all scared of him.

They estimate 1 in 5 female children are subjected to sex abuse by a father in Austria and one in 9 boys.

Alison -

Who estimates that?

An NGO dealing with victims of family violence. It was in the Times report yesterday.

I see. That's a shocker. Best give that NGO lots of money to sort it out then.

I agree with Daphne/Mahons etc, this is a foul story and only the crude and voyeuristic would want to read beyond the first sentence.
However, the BBC World Service kept returning to the topic every hour (all last night), and was showing an increasingly prurient interest in it, like a dog returning to it's vomit.
One couldn't help but feel it was almost reveling in the fact Fritzl was white and European; delving ever deeper into his murky past in order to connect him (in my opinion) with right wingers like Haider and his ilk.
Auntie BBC (now a raddled old whore) never misses the opportunity to turn the sword in the wound of the race it hopes to see as it's final demise.

Here you are faced with a hideous case which even the neighbours hushed up - in a country which has some significant social issues it needs to deal with - clearly else the guy wouldn't even feel entitled to ask for leniency and state what he did - and the only thing you can think of is to sarcasticly write off the only people these kids have to go seek refuge with.

Bravo Pete.

>>One couldn't help but feel it was almost reveling in the fact Fritzl was white and European; delving ever deeper into his murky past in order to connect him (in my opinion) with right wingers like Haider and his ilk.<<

Bernard, Fritzl's affinity to famous right-wingers unfortunately doesn't stop there.

Some time earlier in that place another Austrian - himself an illegitimate child - married a woman much older than he. While married, he got his niece Klara (15) to come live with them. Well, it seems he started carrying on with Klara from the start, but he also had an affair - and a child - with a third woman. When wife No. 1 died, this man married his mistress - who was 24 years younger than he - and mother of his illegitimate child, and had another child with her. When this wife also died, he thought it best to keep things in the family from then on and married his young niece and houseservant, Klara, for which he had to get a dispensation from the Pope himself.

This union was in turn soon blessed with a son, who they called Adolf.

Wait till the BBC hears that!

Noel - nicely written.

Alison -

But they're not so bad that we shouldn't have full political integration with them, yes?

Look, to state that 1 in 5 Austrian girls and 1 in 9 Austrian boys are sexually abused by their fathers is plain codswallop.

To point out that NGOs (along with pressure groups, charities etc) exaggerate the problems they pretend to deal with is to point out the truth. If I do it cynically it's because I'm sick of parasitical NGOs. If this NGO in question has evidence of such widespread child abuse, I'd expect them to notify authorities in Austria instead of using it to get their own name in The Times.

Bernard's line is right. Austria has long been fair game for slurs and smears. It's a civilised, conservative nation with little immigration that happens to be respectful of it's own culture. Chuck in post-war characters like Kurt Waldheim and Jorge Heider and you have a target country that the supposedly anti-racist, anti-discrimination Left cannot resist.

Bernard and Pete

How low and desperate are you to bring your political/racial prejudices into this thread. Will you use any story to get a dig at 'the great Commie conspiracy'

What will you claim next. That this never really happened. A decent white male from a conservative culture ? never! It was all just invented by 'cultural marxists' - pathetic.

Colm -

Yes, clearly I'm much mistaken.

There is a petit bourgeous formality in Austria, a hangover from imperial times, an assumption that a respectable member of the community - a lawyer or engineer, for example - could never be the author of a serious crime.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3834569.ece

Pete

I'm looking at the story purely for what it is.

We are not immune to these stories.

However Austria has not been handling this at all. You cannot compare what you view is wrong with NGOS here and there.

And it is not the entirely civilised pictureqsque place you make it out to be.

The last two stories to have come out of Austria regards child abuse have been appauling. The authorities handling of both inept and disgusting - more to the point.

Natascha Kampusch's abductor may have committed suicide but there was evidence that others were involved in sick abuse games and that the authorities buried the evidence. They allowed these individuals to get away deliberately.

And this revolting fella raped a woman and was given a light sentence because he had kids!

Can i ask the relevance of the BBC focus here when the story David points to is in the Daily Mail and this has been The Suns fodder for days now?

Fritzl's statement was clearly made at the prompting of his rat lawyer. This, together with his "irrational" behaviour will be used in court in an attempt to have him declared insane.

And guess what? It'll work too.

Alison -

Whatever Austrian authorities have been doing, NGOs have no authority there. My point about their nature stands.

In your own beloved London, an organised child abuse ring operated out of Islington Council. Those involved abused children in council care homes.

Margaret Hodge, the then council leader, attempted to have a reporting injunction imposed on the Evening Standard when it broke the story. In the fall out, it was shown that Margaret Hodge was warned of abuse and did nothing to investigate.

Subsequent to this, Tony Blair made her Minister for Children.

We are in no position to point the finger at Austria.

I said "we are not immune to these stories".

Nevertheless i think comment on the Austrian's handling before during and after these two recent horrific cases is pertinent. Comment too on the neighbours who suspected and did nothing - more to the point Pete re social attitudes. That was the basis of the Times article and the NGO comment.

Out of interest how would you suggest child abuse cases are handled in terms of providing refuge for children and who do you think should be responsible. What also do you make of the judge in Austria awarding a low sentence for rape specifically because he had kids.

Also, as a conservative leaning church leaning libertarian what are your views on the legislation brought in today to limit access to extreme porn?

>>Nevertheless i think comment on the Austrian's handling before during and after these two recent horrific cases is pertinent. Comment too on the neighbours who suspected and did nothing -<<

None of these can justify any generalisation about Austria, Alison.

What is so unusual about the "Austrian's" handling of these events anyway?

Also the neighbours' (lack of) reaction could - and does - happen anywhere. Actually, from what I hear about today's Britain, the neighbours there probably wouldn't even notice anything in the first place.

I agree that Austria has many skeletons in its rustic cupboard - not least its failure as a nation to face up to its Nazi past - but I can't see how these incidents are indicative of this problem.

Noel

Ive outlined briefly them above

I am not aware of neighbours in sex abuse cases who suspected their neighbour and did nothing much less came out and fully admitted this to the press! Nor am i aware of a judge who awarded lenient sentences on rape because a man had children. I am aware stupid decisions are made here all the time but i have never heard that one from a judge yet.

I think it is relevant.

It is not me 'generalising'. The Austrian NGO commented specifically on the culture regards the neighbours and the reporting of child abuse generally in Austria.

Alison -

The sentence for what was a proven rape is contemptible.

I'll see if I can generate some sympathy in you for why I am so down on our Queen. She has the power to remove judges when they no longer act in our interests - on petition by both Houses of Parliament. This isn't some archaic procedure but is enshrined in the Supreme Court Act 1981. That the power resides in her makes it incumbent upon her to make the remedy of removal known and possible. This doesn't excuse MPs, Lords and Bishops from their responsibilities, but I have no faith in them to know the Constitution and she is our Constitution's sworn defender. Something to ponder the next time a judge tells a woman she shouldn't have worn a short skirt before giving her proven attacker a negligible sentence.

My point is that if the Austrian Head of State has similar powers yet chooses not to exercise them, they have no business being Head of State.

Re. child abuse cases: my expertise on most subjects stretches nowhere near child abuse. However, I do know that The State is Not Your Friend. Children ought to be in the care of their parents first, relatives second or foster parents. Never should the state be in charge of children. That such children are much more likely to grow up dysfunctional, illiterate, emotionally stunted, unemployed, criminal drug users is beyond question.

Also, as a conservative leaning church leaning libertarian what are your views on the legislation brought in today to limit access to extreme porn?

How we get our jollies is none of the state's business. If the material itself is not outside the law (such as child pornography) then the state has nothing legitimate to say on the matter.

Of course, like most legislation now, it's an appallingly-drafted Act. It doesn't define what 'extreme porn' is but (of course) allows the state to snoop on us. There's no point anyone mentining child pornography or some such thing, because it's all covered by existing legislation anyway.

With this government the Devil is in the detail. Laudable headline aims are backed up often by draconian new powers that the state gathers for itself in order to pursue these laudable aims. I have no doubt this new Act contains the same.

By the way, I'm an agnostic traditionalist. I have no idea if God exists, but think we should be Christians anyway.

In many ways it speaks to the "gentle" England as you called it once, going down the toilet such is the prolific nature of that crap with the internet and its access to all. So why should child porn lovers "jollies" be considered illegal? If they are not acting on their sense of entitlement they are simply entitlement "jollies". Who decides what is legal and what is not in that area? This is no different. I think its more complex and welcome the legislation.

I accept your point re the Queen and have done before Pete. But my point was that she has made what she must consider acceptable losses in order to retain her position - because of us and our attitudes towards her. I think you should go see her and make it clear.

Re the state is not your friend. I get what you say but that didn't answer my question.

Which is what would you do to provide refuge for kids in these circumstances? And which experts would you trust?

Alison-

I brought up the BBC purely as a corollary to the general news 'circus' on this item. Otherwise the comments would just be "yes isn't it awful, and did you hear the other day....blah blah blah" etc etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFU4BseigkU ;-)

Colm-

I'm not so sure of "low" but "desperate" I certainly concur with. Dare I say that myself and Pete Moore (and Robert Spencer/Mark Steyn et al) probably feel that these are desperate times, and don't want to give the self-loathing white trash in the media their opportunity to rub our faces in the dirt.
As for your 'commie conspiracy'. I wish!
That old Cold War era looks positively benign next to what the West is now having to endure.

Alison -

I think its more complex and welcome the legislation.

You'll only end up with nonsenical and complex legislation in that case. Let's have a hypothetical situation. You like looking at naked men on the web. That's fine, no-one's harmed and it's your business only. Now this legislation outlaws 'extreme porn', which your hypothetical habit doesn't involve. But this legislation is so poorly drafted as to hardly define what 'extreme porn' is. So one day, sooner or later, you'll get a male Clare Short in government or the judiciary spoiling your fun and shutting down nakedhunks.com and all along it was none of the state's business anyway.

I thought I did answer the point about child abuse, but maybe I did misunderstand. This is one of those problems with an infinite range of circumstances, therefore the state cannot prescribe outcomes in all possible cases ahead of each situation. All that can be done is for principles, parameters and procedures to be set out for the judiciary to follow.

In this case the family has to be kept together as much as possible and refuge found in that. If the extended family cannot cope then foster parents found. The idea of the state 'caring' for children is such a joke it ought to be beyond consideration.

if that doesn't answer your question I'm still being dim.

I doubt it would ever be THAT simple there is too much cashflow in pr0n Pete.

But my situation re child pr0n was similar and relates to yours..who decides what is just jollies and if there are no nasty consequences why should it be criminal? I say this as ive witnessed some little blog spat where a bloke defended child pr0n precisely on those grounds. Others argue (rightly) it feeds a market where children are then abused. Well the same could be argued of gonzo - you cannot be 100% sure what you are watching on the net involves consent. It comes down to "acceptable losses" and how dismissive we as a society are of those.

I think the internet has upped the stakes with some issues and we should consider these matters. I do not think we need to poorly draft the legislation but i like the fact we as a civilised society consider it.

Yeah the state generally sucks big time in dealing with childcare i totally agree. But re the state - if you remove the state from all affairs like this who or what does that leave in charge of handling child care. So who would you trust if not the state?

I guess i am not clear on what full blooded libertarians hold as the limit to state responsibilties. I would say i consider myself about 95% libertarian and am undecided on limits of state 'interference'.

Anyhoo im off to the pub.

Alison -

Have a few for me. Knowing you'll be back ....

I do not think we need to poorly draft the legislation but i like the fact we as a civilised society consider it.

We start from the moral and constitutionally correct position that we are not obliged to justify our choices to the state. The common law provides that all is legal except those activities which are specifically proscribed. Therefore it is up to the state to justify it's choices to us.

That doesn't solve anything but it is the direction in which this must be viewed. Some of course like to flip the telescope and pretend that we must prove our fitness to do something first.

So when you ask:

who decides what is just jollies and if there are no nasty consequences why should it be criminal?

It is not for any pr0n (why do people use 'pr0n?') fans/users/viewers/whatevers to justify themselves at all.

Re. child care, of course an independent judiciary is involved, but my view on the placing of children into long term care (in the absence of a better authority I suppose it would have to be a court) is simple: absolutely not with a state institution.

Texas is one of six states that has the death penality for child rape. Two men are on death row in Louisiana now, but the High Court is reviewing the leagality of the law.

Texas also seems to have a fairly high conviction turnover rate, as sending wrongly convicted folks to prison is more common there.

Pete, your 8:19 is nearly perfect.

Mahons, Charles - I was looking at our death row numbers the other day and was absolutely floored! I had no idea we had 369 sitting there. That's a lot of bad people.

This guy has some excellent data on the TDC.

Pete/Bernard

To go back to my point. Both you and Bernard complained that the media were guilty of highlighting this case as some sort of conspiracy to get at 'Whites' or 'Conservative societies'. That makes you both as ludicrous and paranoid as those lefties who shout 'racism' or 'Islamophobia' whenever their is any mention in the media of wrongdoings commited by black or Muslim people.

>>That's a lot of bad people.<<

Daphne, or, as mahons indicated, a lot of bad convictions.

I haven't made it as far as my beer yet, still stuck at work.

Pete

I am asking you who decides to proscribe, why should they and on what basis. And therein lies the rub.

Of course the State must justify it to us when it legislates but that does not detract from the fact that we as a society have to take a stand at some point on some things - and we do as we have a collective stake in it.

In this case it was not flipping the telescope but proving a connection between viewing that porn and action eg the death of that young woman. I know some think that is not cause enough to legislate. So i come back to acceptable losses in the argument on how we decide what is right and wrong and wind up with said laws. Who decides viewing child porn is wrong but gonzo is not. Who decides where we draw the line on acceptable losses and why.

To me that is where the laissez faire libertarian argument falls flat. And i still do not have my answer with all due respect to your interesting attempt.

Alison, that's a fair question. I would say the vast majority think certain types of porn are beyond the pale; children, snuff, rape, etc. All non-consensual and should be illegal. The vast majority of porn is normal nudity/sex, the other consensual weird stuff is distasteful to all but a minority of fetishists. (I hope)

I think it should be fairly easy to draw a discriminatory line between legal and illegal. Having said that, I do agree that the availability of 24 hour internet porn does have a bad effect on society. How you regulate that is beyond me.

Not necessarily Noel. 1.52% (if the link above estimate is correct) isn't high by any means. Heck, bump it up to 2%.

Do you expect perfection?

Daphne,

"Pete, your 8:19 is nearly perfect."

Yes, I too noted the inappurtenant apostrophe in "it's choices".

Only kidding, Pete. I agree with Daphne: superb comment.

"I had no idea we had 369 sitting there. That's a lot of bad people."

This is to assume that all are guilty as charged. We know that this isn't always the case. This being chief among the reasons why we abolished the death penalty in these islands.

I cannot believe that the wife , or for that matter , the lodger did not know what was going on in that house . Thus they are as guilty as he is .

Dawkins, go look at the link of a local lawyer blogger I put up. He would agree with anti-death penalty advocates here, I take a different view, but he's incredibly intelligent and well-informed.

Doctor - 100% agree. I don't buy for a minute that the wife didn't know, unless she's completely retarded.

Daphne

Even if we stretch credulity to accept that the wife didn't know , what about the children who lived and were brought up in the house. Were they never eager to explore the basement. Did no-one ever think of following the father down when he he must have brought food and drink and other necessities to those living in the cellar. I don't believe it is possible in a reasonably ordinary sized dwelling to have secured this secrecy from everyone else.

I just think in reality it is far more complex. As i said because of 'how' and 'what'. And those acceptable losses we decide on to 'safeguard' other's freedoms.

I know he nails it for others. But it just doesn't answer my question. That said i've asked it many times over to libertarians and it's never a satisfactory answer.

I can't agree with that Doctor - if you read the story he went to incredible lengths to keep her out of that basement and was a frightening and overbearing individual. She is of course stupid (and a dreadful little doormat) though - for staying married to a man convicted of rape.

Colm, everyone had to know something strange was going on, that was one abnormal household.

Alison, willful stupidity isn't an excuse for what happened in that house. I don't care how brutal he was or how subservient she was - she knew something was wrong and decided to close her eyes.

Alison, courts have upheld free speech adult content pornography as law for years. How can that be changed or limited now that the internet has taken off? Serious question.

Colm -

Both you and Bernard complained that the media were guilty of highlighting this case as some sort of conspiracy ...

Not at all. I certainly don't allege a conspiracy and don't think Bernard does either. I'm talking of a general attitude to Austria which manifests itself through a low-level, very soft chauvinism which (I admit) is often nebulous. The meta-context of course is the enthusiasm which which many Austrians embraced National Socialism. Decades of imperial retreat saw Britain and France take in huge numbers of immigrants with Austria imposing an isolation on itself. It is a conservative society.

Young git that I am, I'm old enough to remember the Kurt Waldheim kerfuffle and the anti-Austrian reporting that went on. A few years later the Austrians - long proudly on the geographic boundary facing communism - went and voted in large numbers for Jorge Heider. Again, out came the anti-Austrian rhetoric. Today we have this monster, a man who could have done what he did in Austria or anywhere on Earth. In fact there cannot be any doubt that worse is happening somewhere, but comment is not on him: again, Austria is held up to scrutiny in a manner that would be decried as racist is he were African or Asian.

It is anti-Austrian propaganda, however low-level, but it's not a conspiracy.

Daphne,

"Dawkins, go look at the link of a local lawyer blogger I put up."

Can you be a dear and repost the link? I don't know where to find it and am really interested.

Alison, your first sentence made me laugh out loud.

I think evil can be sane.

Happily Dawkins here you go