Millionaire fined after using children's gravestones to build a patio


[Read the post]


Wow. Just… wow.

I’m sure there’s no laws on the books to deal with this sort of thing, because who the fuck would have thought we’d ever need such a law!?

I hope this asshole suffers for this, in the only way such an awful asshole can; becoming destitute after the flurry of fines from the government, lawsuits from every descendant of the families of those children, and any businesses related to him dropping him like the sack of infested shit he is. We can only hope some prosecutor figures out a way to make jail time stick on top of that, too.


Maybe he’s a really big fan of the original Poltergeist movies. Or Casper.


There’s a perfectly good link to the BBC’s coverage, and never, ever, an excuse to link to the Daily Mail.


Or The Gashlycrumb Tinies.


At the time, few people realized that The Adams Family was a documentary


I thought the same thing - and besides, if ever the only source is the Daily Mail, then it’s almost definitely entirely fabricated.

Can the technical folks at BoingBoing (@deanputney?) put some kind of filter in place to auto-remove Daily Mail links from posts?

[For the good of humanity the link to the source of this story has been removed]

I’ve seen Murdoch removing Chrome extensions around before, but might as well nip it at the source.


If the stones are old enough, it’s unlikely. I’m damned if I know where my great-uncle’s gravestone is. I don’t even know his name.

This is why they invented hell.


So far, only £300,000 in fines. Which I thought was a drop in the bucket, but apparently he’s already had to sell two of his cars to raise funds for this project, so fingers crossed that’s actually an amount that will hurt him, even a little bit. I doubt it, but hope remains.


Society’s interest in the dead is weird. They’re dead.


Does this guy wear a top hat and twirl his mustache when he laughs?


Millionaires’ interest in dead-children-gravestone patios is weirder…


IIRC, BB uses “nofollow” on some/all(?) outgoing links.


It’s about having a moral compass and respect. To the living and the dead. If this guy can’t be bothered to be respectful to children’s graves do you think he’s any better in other situations?


Watches Schindler’s List, sees the scene where they pave the Warsaw Ghetto with gravestones and lightbulb goes off, “What a great idea for my new patio!”


I tend to be more respectful to the living (when deserved) than the dead, because the dead don’t give a fuck any more. So I’m not sure that using hundreds-of-years-old gravestones like this necessarily has any direct correlation to how he treats real live humans. That being said, the guy still appears to be, at the very least, completely tasteless.


That was my initial response. You can buy human child skeletons this afternoon if you like. Why care about the ornamental rocks put on top of them? If anything, he’s preserving the stones. Anyone that’s been to a really old cemetery can attest that few are recognizable past 200 or so years.

I suspect this is more about who did it than what was actually done.


Here’s a quicky Greasemonkey Script that’ll remove Daily Fail links and put a disclaimer at the bottom of the article, if that helps?


The thing that gets me is that the article, the judge, and the law each seem more concerned with the architectural integrity of the building than the use of headstones as building materials.


Millionaire fined after using children’s gravestones to build a patio