• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Writer tracks down negative reviewer, assaults her.

This attack is actually much worse than it appears at first glance. My first reaction was to wonder what happened to the woman who was hit. Unlike in the movies, if someone is hit hard enough with a bottle it can kill them. If the bottle breaks on impact they can be severely cut.

This was no professional reviewer he attacked but was actually an 18-year-old Scottish woman who works in a supermarket and posted a negative reader review to a website called Wattpad. The author himself had uploaded parts of the book, which was self-published, to the site. The author, Richard Brittain, then posted comments on the site saying the woman's review was unfair because she had not read the entire book. He used Internet searches to determine who the poster was and where she worked. He then tracked her down. While she was stacking shelves in the food store he came up from behind and slammed her in the head with a wine bottle. She was cut, apparently pretty badly, and knocked unconscious.

He then fled the scene but police tracked him down.

Ironically, Brittain says the book is loosely based on his experiences stalking a woman he met at college. He has been convicted in that case as well.
 
From the BBC link:
A former Countdown champion who travelled 400 miles to attack a teenager who gave his book a bad review has been jailed for 30 months. Richard Brittain, 28, used Facebook to track victim Paige Rolland, 18, to the Asda store in Glenrothes where she worked. He then smashed a full wine bottle over her head - knocking her unconscious. A month earlier Brittain stalked a university classmate, Ella Durant, after she moved from London to Glasgow.

Sheriff Martin Jones QC granted an indefinite order preventing Brittain from using any electronic device to monitor the movements, follow, communicate or contact or approach either of his victims. He also ordered Brittain to be monitored in the community for a year after his release from prison and told him "the only disposal in this case is a custodial one".
Click to expand...

I wonder what his sentence would have been like had this happened in the U.S.? Quite possibly more severe; for starters I suspect he might've been charged with attempted murder not assault. Since he had already been arrested for stalking a woman he knew only casually from school, I would expect he might've gotten the upper range of possible sentencing, maybe a 10-12 year prison sentence. Would that be too much?

That's a hard question to answer. What would be adequate to both punish the offender and protect the community? I agree with Brittain's defense lawyer, he does seem to have some serious mental health issues. But at least from a legal standpoint he does not appear to be legally insane. Fleeing the scene and attempting to evade arrest indicate pretty clearly he knew what he did was wrong, the legal threshold in the U.S.

The problem is, there is no way of knowing how someone like this will process his experience. Will he learn a lesson from having to spend a couple years in prison? Or will he instead, as criminal justice people say, "continue to offend?" I know a veteran NY cop who suspects Brittain will continue to offend and probably be re-arrested in the future, that he won't modify his behavior until he "ages out."

:(
 
newyorkguy said:
From the BBC link:


I wonder what his sentence would have been like had this happened in the U.S.? Quite possibly more severe; for starters I suspect he might've been charged with attempted murder not assault. Since he had already been arrested for stalking a woman he knew only casually from school, I would expect he might've gotten the upper range of possible sentencing, maybe a 10-12 year prison sentence. Would that be too much?

That's a hard question to answer. What would be adequate to both punish the offender and protect the community? I agree with Brittain's defense lawyer, he does seem to have some serious mental health issues. But at least from a legal standpoint he does not appear to be legally insane. Fleeing the scene and attempting to evade arrest indicate pretty clearly he knew what he did was wrong, the legal threshold in the U.S.

The problem is, there is no way of knowing how someone like this will process his experience. Will he learn a lesson from having to spend a couple years in prison? Or will he instead, as criminal justice people say, "continue to offend?" I know a veteran NY cop who suspects Brittain will continue to offend and probably be re-arrested in the future, that he won't modify his behavior until he "ages out."

:(
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you posted here. And I intend to not review his books when he gets out.

The knotty problem is, of course, that most people don't want a society in which someone can be put into jail or forced medical therapy for the crimes that they might do in the future. I think perhaps an extended parole with monitoring might have helped in some ways.
 
I think sentencing offenders based on how dangerous they are, whether they pose an ongoing threat to society, is well-established in the criminal justice system. This is from an on-line legal dictionary:
Governments have several theories to support the use of punishment to maintain order in society. Theories of punishment can be divided into two general philosophies: utilitarian and retributive...Under the utilitarian philosophy, laws that specify punishment for criminal conduct should be designed to deter future criminal conduct...Specific deterrence means that the punishment should prevent the same person from committing crimes.
Specific deterrence works in two ways. First, an offender may be put in jail or prison to physically prevent them from committing another crime for a specified period... Link
Click to expand...

In Richard Brittain's case I think he does pose a clear danger to members of society. Look at his behavior. First, he reacted violently to an unfavorable opinion an Internet user posted about his book. This was no spur-of-the-moment reaction. He went to a great deal of trouble to track down the person, traveled four hundred miles to confront them and then literally ambushed them. The response was completely out of proportion to the reader review that was posted. Brittain's book was uniformly panned; what effect would a single negative reader review have? He not only reacted violently but irrationally.

I think judges, at least in the U.S., look at an offender's potential danger to the community when determining what is an adequate sentence. I've heard judges say that both first-hand and on TV. That a convicted offender "poses a great and ongoing danger to the public and, for that reason, and for the viciousness of the crime, I am going to sentence you to the maximum sentence allowed by law."
 
Last edited:
newyorkguy said:
I think sentencing offenders based on how dangerous they are, whether they pose an ongoing threat to society, is well-established in the criminal justice system. This is from an on-line legal dictionary:


In Richard Brittain's case I think he does pose a clear danger to members of society. Look at his behavior. First, he reacted violently to an unfavorable opinion an Internet user posted about his book. This was no spur-of-the-moment reaction. He went to a great deal of trouble to track down the person, traveled four hundred miles to confront them and then literally ambushed them. The response was completely out of proportion to the reader review that was posted. Brittain's book was uniformly panned; what effect would a single negative reader review have? He not only reacted violently but irrationally.

I think judges, at least in the U.S., look at an offender's potential danger to the community when determining what is an adequate sentence. I've heard judges say that both first-hand and on TV. That a convicted offender "poses a great and ongoing danger to the public and, for that reason, and for the viciousness of the crime, I am going to sentence you to the maximum sentence allowed by law."
Click to expand...

I agree. People convicted of a second stalking offence that occurred after the previous conviction should also have a life parole once released.
 
And, just a friendly reminder Of Jacqueline Lovell and The Greek Seaman debacle (she and some of her family wrote nasty to an online reviewer who tried to help her understand the strong need for a good editor. Word got out and loads of people (me included) quoted ridiculous errors of grammar, spelling , composition, plotting and so much more. Her family and a few helpful friends tried to stop the descent into one star territory but .. She removed that "book" from Amazon, but still has one there.
 
Doesn't Uwe Boll challenge his critics (there are a lot of them) to a boxing match? At least he gives them fair warning and the option to not participate.

Why do people think this is going to make them change their mind about that review they posted? It like when an athlete beats up a ref after he makes a questionable call. That's not going to make the situation better!
 
thats the only book on amazon I've seen where the majority reviews are negative.

Did you look at the 5 star reviews, though?

I didn't read the whole thing, just the sample (trust me thats enough). It's the worst thing ever written, but that is what makes it a masterpiece. It's the kind of bad you only hear about in fairy-tails and on fan fic.com. But the fact that this is a sold work is priceless.
Click to expand...

:D
 
TragicMonkey said:
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post

Shades of A Vincent Price movie called "THeater Of Blood",where a disgruntled actor starts to kill off the critics who don;t like using methods from Shakespeare's play.
Click to expand...

I love that movie! In the end everyone dies from high chloresterol from all the ham!
Click to expand...

That is my favorite Vincent Price movie and Diana Rigg is almost as wonderfully over the top has Price is in the movie.

The movie is also full of in jokes about the BBC along with some of the most hammy Shakespeare ever. My favorite scene involves a comment about where some ones heart is. I will leave it at that. Spoiler! Sadly though one critic survives and then goes on to show Price should have got him too.

All in all much carpet chewing fun.
 
Last edited:
Pacal said:
That is my favorite Vincent Price movie and Diana Rigg is almost as wonderfully over the top has Price is in the movie.

The movie is also full of in jokes about the BBC along with some of the most hammy Shakespeare ever. My favorite scene involves a comment about where some ones heart is. I will leave it at that. Spoiler! Sadly though one critic survives and then goes on to show Price should have got him too.

All in all much carpet chewing fun.
Click to expand...
Didn't realize it was a lesbian porn film!!!!!



Unless, of course, you meant "scenery munching/chewing"!!!!!!!!!!!!!:jaw-dropp:D:D:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom