Father Impregnates Daughters 19 Times

There’s a special place in hell for beasts like this.

A British man was jailed Tuesday for raping two of his daughters and fathering nine children over 27 years, a case with echoes of Austria’s Josef Fritzl.

The two daughters were made pregnant 19 times; there were nine births, five miscarriages and five terminations. Seven of the children are alive but suffer genetic deformities.

The father, who cannot be named for legal reasons banning the identification of his victims and the surviving children, pleaded guilty Tuesday at Sheffield Crown Court, northern England, and was sentenced to serve 25 life sentences to run concurrently.

The judge said the minimum term the 56-year-old rapist should serve in jail should be 19½ years.

1. Only 19.5 years.
   thats not enough, here in the us he could get out alot earlier for good behavior.
   that is one sick bastard

   Posted by on November 26, 2008 at 0338 hrs




2. Wouldn’t one think that his wife would know?  She’ll be sharing that “special place”.

   Posted by Steve on November 26, 2008 at 0823 hrs




3. I don’t think he will ast as long in prison as Jesse Anderson or Jeffry Dahmer. That special place in hell is less than 45 days away when the bars slam behind him.

   Posted by on November 26, 2008 at 0846 hrs




4. What?  It’s Britain.  In ten years he’ll be out and living in a council flat (e.g., subsidized housing), and any neighbor who complains about a child-rapist next door will be arrested for violating his civil rights.

   Posted by HeatherRadish on November 26, 2008 at 1112 hrs




5. But we all know that people cannot be expected to control their sexual urges.  Right?  Isn’t that what the left tells us?  If the daughters were consenting adults (even consenting teens) during any of this I’d think it would be no problemo in the minds of the sexual-hedonist left in this world.

   Posted by David on November 26, 2008 at 1318 hrs




6. david the schools should have been handing out condoms so these pregnencies didnt happen.
   then i guess no one would have known anything.

   Posted by on November 26, 2008 at 1829 hrs




7. #s 5 & 6-
   Who Are You???  Is the way you really think people on the left are?  You really think the left sports apologists for this kind of behavior?  This would never occur to me to be a partisan issue.  That you attempt to make it into one is disgusting in the extreme.  Shame on you.

   Posted by on November 27, 2008 at 1533 hrs




8. Mike:  David makes a valid point and limits it to the “Sexual Hedonist Left”.  I’d also argue that the Left has little problem with nearly any sexual fetish regardless of how extreme.  The Left has shown no propensity for holding this kind of behavior accountable, so if the shoe fits.....

   Posted by Steve on November 27, 2008 at 2103 hrs




9. In our place I’m sure he will be sentenced to death, those bastards aren’t thinking.... hell burn in hell someday or sooner

   Posted by Ferienwohnung Leutasch on November 28, 2008 at 0359 hrs




10. Mike,
    Take a look at the facts: the father had urges for his daughters.  As a society (worldwide, in fact) we have decided that sex with one’s children is immoral.

    So the father was left with a choice: act on his desires, or not.

    There is word for one of those options.  Go ahead, you can say it; the father could abstain from sex with his daughters.

    My point was: who are the ones who always tell us that abstinence is an unrealistic expectation of people in the face of making sexual decision based on morality?  The left.

    Therefore, the left should really have no problem with this guy simply acting on his natural sexual desires.

    Posted by David on November 28, 2008 at 1311 hrs




11. Boy they can dish it out but cant take it

    Posted by on November 28, 2008 at 1342 hrs




12. Steve-
    No. Sexual-hedonist was a label for (all of) the left that David used.  His words, from earlier in the comment were directed at the entire left left “...isn’t that what the left tells us?” Then you say, “The left has shown no propensity for holding this kind of behavior accountable” can you show me some kind of precedent for this statement?  Otherwise it comes off as just another ugly accusation designed to drive partisan debate out of the realm of rational and blindly into the confrontational.

    David-
    I’ll look at the facts in your words: “As a society (worldwide, in fact), we have decided that sex with one’s children is immoral.” How does that discount the left? This is a position firmly held by those across the political spectrum.  Why is that hard to admit?  Have you convinced yourself that anyone on the political left is the moral equivalent of a child molester? Is that where you’d like to position the left?  That far out of the societal mainstream as to condone the acts in this post? That’s just wrong.

    Posted by on November 28, 2008 at 1517 hrs




13. Mike:  I stand by my reading of the “sexual-hedonist” comment.  If the commenter wants to clarify and indicates that I’m incorrect, great.

    As far as accountabiltiy, where do you want to start?  Democrat members of Congress?  Maybe the 70’s Gay Liberation or “if it feels good do it” mentality?  Maybe you’d like to talk about the deafening silence over sex with an intern in the Oval Office?

    Posted by Steve on November 28, 2008 at 1546 hrs




14. Steve-
    You still fail to connect. Accountability:Democrat members of congress: can’t think of a one who’d say (or even think in the back of their private brains) “Hey dude if you like to do it, have at it.” Gay liberation: what do equal right for those with different sexual preferences have to do with this?  Oh, I see. Again you are equating those with whom you disagree and child molesters. That’s not any more logical now… The oral sex in the oval office thing, I don’t recall much silence at all during that time.  The world was pretty loud then, on both sides of the political spectrum.  That’s how impeachment comes about.

    This just amounts to a couple of guys saying lefties are no better than a bunch of child molesters. I still see it as irresponsible public discourse.  Lets change that.

    Posted by on November 29, 2008 at 1005 hrs




15. My point is that any time the issue has involved a change in traditional sexual mores, the Left has been at the forefront of promoting it.  This is only an extension.  Remember NAMBLA?  The Left defended and promoted.  Privacy and all that.

    If the Left wasn’t silent on Clinton, how come he wasn’t run out on a rail by the NOW gang for using the power of his office to gain sex with a subordinate?  I seem to recall incredible outrage like that with a cetain Senator from the Pacific Northwest.  Feel free to be in denial about the double standard.  Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    Posted by Steve on November 29, 2008 at 1122 hrs




16. Last comment for me.  This case is not about a change in tradtional sexual mores.  This case is about a predator that needs to be put away for a very very long time.  A non-partisan issue.  Nobody I know on the left would support going easy on this guy, and I don’t view that stance as being at all hypocritical. If that means I am in denail, then so be it.  high

    Posted by on November 29, 2008 at 1602 hrs




17. *denial. Aand “high” obviously should not have been at the end…

    Posted by on November 29, 2008 at 1603 hrs




18. Mike:
    

    Have you convinced yourself that anyone on the political left is the moral equivalent of a child molester? Is that where you’d like to position the left?

    Of course not.  My point is the stark raving hypocrisy of the left when it comes to making moral value judgments over one’s sexual proclivities.  Why is it then so easy for the left to expect this guy to abstain from acting on his sexual urges, but they cry a river when one suggests that teenagers might be better off abstaining from sex until adulthood or marriage?

    Posted by David on November 29, 2008 at 1724 hrs