“Obituaries should be reserved for people who have done something notable with their lives, not something notorious. We should not glorify criminals by giving them attention, but instead remember their victims: Wilma McCann, Emily Jackson, Irene Richardson, Patricia Atkinson, Jayne MacDonald, Jean Jordan, Yvonne Pearson, Helen Rytka, Vera Millward, Josephine Whitaker, Barbara Leach, Marguerite Walls and Jacqueline Hill.
When found guilty and proven 100% he should have got something else.
I’m guessing considering this article exists then the short answer is yes.
Is it right to still give this 'airtime'?
Yes. Death is the great equaliser. He can hardly benefit from it.
Who?
A serious error of judgement !
No. There, that wasn't so hard now was it?
There
He killed people. What else is their to say?
No. And now you're writing about him again
Was it right that the founding editor of the Guardian used it as a vehicle for opposing the abolition of child labour?
EmmaForni1
Absolutely not. It’s disgusting.
Er, NO.
Absolutely not. We know his name but not the women he brutally killed. Have you though about the heartbreak of the women's families?
Depends on whether you saw the light of day or the dark of night. Reading about him made me wonder what effected him so much. Did we learn anything from him to ensure we catch identify traits in others, and possibly help them? Very little is said on why. Religious beliefs
No, of course not. Dumb decision.
No. Absolutely not. Giving them the notoriety they seek is an insult to victims.
Now you ask? An article starting 'Should the Guardian....' perhaps would make more sense....
What a load of garbage, because it's the Guardian. The daily Mail dedicated a pull out supplement to him. Right wing gaslighters.
Yes he was a significant, if evil, figure in the 20th century
NO
No
grauniadmeme what's going on, I am confused
no. Next question?
No, it was immoral and an insult to the memory of his victims and their families.
No
Nope. Or even cover it except a tiny report. Same for all the other disgusting media coverage. That they don't prioritise the victims and their families makes a mockery of the 'free press' Kneejerk Scoop Addiction lives on.
Really, you need to ask?
But OK to write one for say a head of state responsible for perhaps thousands of deaths - if through war or through neglect of responsibility - like Johnson when his time comes or Trump - will he get one - he's a monster? How do we judge? Did Sadam have one or Hitler? Idi Amin?
NO!
You and WaPo are clearly trying to outdo one another for Shitpost of the Year award. We can see you.
Mystery donor donates £5,000 towards headstone 😠
No it bloody was not
He suffered for his art
thanks
yeah it was foul
Only a far-Left comic, such as the guardian would give their hero an obituary.
“Was it right to give Peter Sutcliffe a Guardian article dedicated to talking about whether we should have given Peter Sutcliffe a guardian Obituary”
He doesn’t know he had one. It’s a source for researchers in the future is all. He was more widely known about than most of us ever will ever be.
Absolutely not!! More should have been given to his victims.
That's a no.
No
no
I wondered that as well. A short news item perhaps, but a full obituary?
Absolutely categorically NO
I think you know the answer to that.
You can't even offer a simple apology for writing an obituary about a misogynistic serial killer, you have to write an equivocation so long and drawn out that it would even impress Jeremy Corbyn.
No
No
No, next question.
No. Next?
No.
United Kingdom Latest News, United Kingdom Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.