Owner speaks of ‘frustration’ after Aldeburgh property is targeted with anti-Semetic graffiti

PUBLISHED: 19:28 19 May 2017

The owner of the property says he is frustrated after the property was vandalised four times in fives weeks. Picture: SARAH LUCY BROWN

The owner of the property says he is frustrated after the property was vandalised four times in fives weeks. Picture: SARAH LUCY BROWN

The owner of the property says he is ‘frustrated’ after his property was targeted four times in fives weeks with vandalism.

Reports of anti-Semitic graffiti scrawled onto a building in the Suffolk seaside town were first made on Monday, May 15.

The graffiti, which features the Jewish Star of David with “die” written underneath, alongside an image resembling a Nazi Swastika - although incorrectly drawn - was discovered on a building, previously reported as ‘derelict’, just off Park Road in Aldeburgh.

However, owner of the property Duncan Wright, claims that his property has been targeted ‘four times since the beginning of the Easter holidays’ by vandals.

Mr Wright said: “It is so frustrating. We are fighting a losing battle. It has been broken into constantly and severally.

“It will probably cost around £1000 to fix the interior, hundreds of pounds to fix the fencing and the outside also need replacing.”

The damage to the property, which Mr Wright has owned for nearly 20 years, includes broken windows, door frames, more graffiti inside as well as stolen fencing and fence posts.

Talking about why his property is constantly targeted, Mr Wright said: “It’s nothing personal - its just hidden and out of the way and they [vandals] know they can get away with it.”

Many residents in Aldeburgh have spoken of their ‘shock’ at the vandalism.

Local neighbour, John Lucas, said: “What’s so very shocking about this, apart from the fact that it’s an awful piece of graffiti to have in our town, is that children from the primary school have to walk past it.

“I’m just startled that here in the Suffolk coast, something like this suddenly appears. I’ve known Aldeburgh for 70 years, I’ve never seen anything like it before.”

Talking about plans to remove to graffiti, a Suffolk Coastal District Council spokesman said: “Our initial enquiries indicate this has occurred on private property.

“We are currently trying to arrange for it to be removed as quickly as possible.”

The graffiti has been reported as a “hate crime” to Suffolk Constabulary, which is investigating the incident.

A spokesperson from Suffolk Constabulary, said: “Officers are looking into who caused damage to the building and enquiries are continuing at this stage.”

Anyone with information should contact the local Safer Neighbourhood Team by calling Suffolk Police on 101, quoting crime number 35445/17.”


  • Horrific as this incident clearly is, and however juvenile or otherwise its motive - I'm here to comment on journalistic and sub-editorial standards. Sorry if you're a junior staffer Megan. I did two weeks' work experience at my local rag when I was 16, and it was two of the most tedious weeks of my life. It made reading the Framley Examiner so much more rewarding. The sub-eds, however, should know better. 1. Is it anti-Semetic or ant-Semitic? Both are apparently valid spellings, but pick a lane already. 2. "four times in fives weeks with vandalism." Both photo caption and article. Hardly an appropriate level of gravitas for behaviour motivated by persecution of Jewish people. Four times in five weeks by vandalsvandalism would have read less indifferent. 3. "previously reported as ‘derelict’, just off Park Road in Aldeburgh." See point 5. 4. "Talking about plans to remove to graffiti" - *the* graffiti, right? 5. There's no need to put single (or, for that matter, double) quote marks around the word shock in the sentence "Many residents in Aldeburgh have spoken of their ‘shock’ at the vandalism". You're referring to numerous sources, who can't have used the same language - so it ought to be understood that the reporter is describing their collective experience, not needing to act as though they're quoting one specific individual, as they might if the Prime Minister was "shocked and disgusted" at a terror attack; or if reporting an as-yet unsubstantiated accusation of a crime, such as X being accused of "murdering" Y. But, more to the point here. 6. The words HATE CRIME are appropriately recognised and defined in UK law to identify acts of deliberate hatred against a person or people on grounds of gender, sexuality, race, religion, nationality or disability. Whether or not the outcome of that report comes to nothing, the fact of this incident being reported (as has been reported here) as a "hate crime", in quote marks, suggests an ambiguity about whether or not the idea of it being reported as such has, or should have, legitimacy in law. The fact is, and needs to be made explicit, that it just does - or people can go away from this article with the impression that the qualification of a "hate crime" as a legal term remains subject to debate, which it does not. That's precisely why the law exists - and had to jump through substantial legislative hoops in order to do so. People's lives depend on tacit recognition of this, and hatred survives where that recognition is cast in doubt. Earn your living, people, please.

    Report this comment


    Sunday, May 21, 2017

  • I disagree 'who-me'; property is sacrosanct, regardless of its condition. Would you allow these ignorant kids to damage a house because the owner(s) may not have been able to repair it, or decided not to? Does that justify the right of others to damage it? I think not. What is to be done about it is the decision of the owner(s) and the local authorities.

    Report this comment


    Saturday, May 20, 2017

  • It looks like it was an eye sore to begin with - run down and not maintained - no wonder they took a shine to it. Something may be done to tidy it up now. Cycle Hire?

    Report this comment


    Saturday, May 20, 2017

  • The real significance of a comment - especially if offensive in any way - is based on the person(s) who created it. If it is from an intelligent source, which has a racial motive, then it is very worrying and the root of it needs to be cut. But this one was from a group of kids and clearly they are not very intelligent .... so the comment should worry no-one. However, they should of course be traced and dealt with for the damage they caused - at the same time they should be given some education.

    Report this comment


    Saturday, May 20, 2017

  • I'm glad to see our day has been posted. Shame that it's come to this tho.

    Report this comment

    Milly Wright

    Friday, May 19, 2017

  • They can't even draw the swastika the right way round....pathetic isn't it...just a bunch of kids being stupid.

    Report this comment


    Friday, May 19, 2017

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

Other popular content

22 minutes ago

Quiz night at Seckford Golf Club raises more than £1,200 for Eve appeal for fighting cancer.

Students from the Alde Valley Academy in Leiston have been learning about life working in the hospitality industry.

12 minutes ago

A leading medic at the West Suffolk Hospital has given his backing to an appeal to raise £500,000 for a new cardiac unit at the site in Bury St Edmunds.

32 minutes ago

Essex’s new fire chief says she was ‘delighted and excited’ to be offered the role.

Local weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 10°C

min temp: 9°C

Show Job Lists

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up to receive our regular email newsletter
MyDate24 MyPhotos24