I haven't called a 13-year-old anything.

The person in question is 42 years of age.



When people come up with cretinous cobblers such as the above, I don't feel any great need to be politically correct about their being stupid.

It's even funnier when they're struggling so, so desperately to be a troll.

Minty in i will do what i like Shocker! And justify it in any way i want

You bet wrongly. Try again.

And I await your list of achievements leading the plebs down the correct revolutionary path. Comrade.

Durham Giant getting wound up at being called out for hypocrisy, plus a desperate attempt to avoid revealing his own record actually doing anything politically instead of just telling people off for remembering the dead of wars.

So the moral of this story is that you are happy to abuse who you want but other people doing the same is unacceptable.

Because subjectively they are posting 'cretinous cobblers' and subjectively they wouldn't think you were doing the same.

And I suggest that you actually read my post near the top of this thread rather than guessing at what you think I want.

Serious cases of bullying and abuse need dealing with.

That said I do not think that saying something mildly unpleasant on the Internet should warrant police investigation.

There's abuse and there's pointing out that stupidity is stupidity.

They are not one and the same.

What is stupidity though? It is an entirely subjective concept especially when it comes to political debate.

What you may think is stupid someone else might think is a perfectly legitimate and 'non stupid' opinion.

So for you to point out someone's stupidity as you say will be seen by you as attacking what they see as their perfectly legitimate opinion. That is when the abuse normally begins to flow because people don't like to be labelled stupid.

On one hand, I agree.



Again, agreed.

However, if, for instance, someone consistently refuses to support whatever their opinion is with anything relating to facts, or consistently refuses to 'remember' what was pointed out (with data etc) in a previous discussion, or refuses to answer direct and simple questions and only pops up again to spout a soundbite (without supporting it with any data etc), then we are into a rather different realm.

Perhaps it's simply trolling. And trolling really irritates people – possibly particularly when they're trying to have something approaching a serious discussion of a subject.

That, of course, is probably why most trolls do it in the first place, to be honest. But then how could that be seen to be anything other than crass behaviour?

More specifically, to accuse someone of 'abusing' a child when they were commenting on someone who was 13 nearly three decades ago, is simply ridiculous. You can't abuse someone restrospectively – unless you have a time machine in the garden.

Personally, I don't think it is right to call someone stupid even though their thought processes are illogical.
They are usually ill-informed, ignorant, blinkered, poorly educated etc.
But comments like 'run along little boy.' and 'come back when you are ready to play with the big boys' are uncalled for ... but rife.
Stick to what is said.

Quote ="Durham Giant"I agree with that as does Women's aid www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-vi ... s+releases Maybe that is why some common sense, training and proper risk assessment would not go amiss Two social inadequates in the North east, with limited resources no significant criminal history that we are aware off, who pose a negligible risk of acting on what they have posted, make threats against a well to do women in the South East suggests the risk was very low. Yet time and resources, prosecution and court time go into it. 2 Women a week are killed by their partners maybe a bit extra time and training dealing with that ratrher than looking at people who post tweets that are offensive. ( there are many more examples of idiots that the police track down and prosecute not just these two). Then there is the issue of whether 12 weeks in prison for a woman who was drunk and 8 weeks in prison for a vulnerable agrophobic who will probably spend most of his time in a VPU or prison hospital . Are they that much of a risk they need prison?'" I'd definitely agree there needs more time and training given toward domestic abuse cases, although the problem with domestic abuse doesn't just lay on the police's side. Sadly the women (its generally women but I know there are cases involving men as the victim) involved often don't report the abuse or want to talk about the issue. Personally I think there needs to be more education in general so as friends and family know what to look out for in such cases, although again that's far from a perfect solution. But I still don't think that should lead to police or CPS not following other, more minor, cases through. I do think a jail sentence appears very harsh when you see how some criminals escape jail sentences for, in my opinion, much worse crimes.

Quote ="Durham Giant"I agree with that as does Women's aid www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-vi ... s+releases Maybe that is why some common sense, training and proper risk assessment would not go amiss Two social inadequates in the North east, with limited resources no significant criminal history that we are aware off, who pose a negligible risk of acting on what they have posted, make threats against a well to do women in the South East suggests the risk was very low. Yet time and resources, prosecution and court time go into it. 2 Women a week are killed by their partners maybe a bit extra time and training dealing with that ratrher than looking at people who post tweets that are offensive. ( there are many more examples of idiots that the police track down and prosecute not just these two). Then there is the issue of whether 12 weeks in prison for a woman who was drunk and 8 weeks in prison for a vulnerable agrophobic who will probably spend most of his time in a VPU or prison hospital . Are they that much of a risk they need prison?'" I'd definitely agree there needs more time and training given toward domestic abuse cases, although the problem with domestic abuse doesn't just lay on the police's side. Sadly the women (its generally women but I know there are cases involving men as the victim) involved often don't report the abuse or want to talk about the issue. Personally I think there needs to be more education in general so as friends and family know what to look out for in such cases, although again that's far from a perfect solution. But I still don't think that should lead to police or CPS not following other, more minor, cases through. I do think a jail sentence appears very harsh when you see how some criminals escape jail sentences for, in my opinion, much worse crimes.

The problem with social media is quite similar to those of multiculturalism - In theory, both are great ideas, but in reality they will always have trouble when mixing with simple human nature.

Now, I don't condone death threats, but let's not kid ourselves that this sort of thing has only begun with the invention of the internet - Threatening letters and menacing telephone calls have been a staple of life for a long, long time. The only reason for a perceived rise in these threats is that the internet is a lot more instant - Actually writing a threatening letter took a bit of effort, whereas typing some witless threat online can be done in seconds, usually before the guilty party has even had chance to take stock of the possible results of their actions.

The thing is, actual human nature dictates that people will bully and name call.... Looking at that Beth Tweddle link, despite the cruelty and ignorance of much that was written, a lot of people would actually dismiss most of that as banter - Certainly not humorous banter, but banter all the same.

I saw a similar episode not long ago when the footballer Jonjo Shelvey was taking part in a live webchat - The stuff he was bombarded with was extremely cruel, yet watching it unfold live, you couldn't help but feel he had opened himself up for such abuse.

I think if people are going to be bold as to enter into public forums, then, unfortunately, they are going to have to be aware that they are going to be exposed to various cranks and will have to deal with them accordingly - I'm not saying that 'death threats' should just be ignored, but people and, most importantly, the police must be able to judge the likelihood of a supposed threat being real.... Those two characters mentioned in the original post were obviously harmless cranks - Throwing the weight of the law at them does seem a bit OTT, and actually jailing them seems a tad bizarre.

As a male, who is white, and straight, and able-bodied (extra few lbs not withstanding

), i get the feeling any level of abuse towards me would just be laughed off and i'd be told to 'suck it up'

I wasn't aware that that was a choice they are forced to make. But I find your conclusion that no time and effort should be spent on confronting racism, sexism or threatening words, just because made via media, startling.

I am amazed that people didn't realise that by using sites which allow comments to be posted, that there would be derisiory, bigotted, nasty, threatening comments made.
It happens on this site.
It's how you deal with them that is the challange.
Don't join the sites or don't read the comments.
Is that too difficult a concept?

typical twisting of post from you.
I said they look into them do a=#FF0000 risk assessment and then go back to the complainant and say it is not a serious or creditable threat therefore we will not take it forward.

If Criados perezs were two blokes who had convictions for DV, rape, threats to kill, stalking etc then the risks would have been higher and action taken.

Wasting time on drunk, learning disabled agraphobics who are lonely and just seeking attention etc should not have been taken further IMHO.

I now await the usual nested quote reply with half sentences and specific replies to another post broken down into every semantic meaning of a word then taken out of context with the usual conclusion that something was said which never was.

She didn't know their circumstances when she was being threatened. Indeed didn't they intimate that they were close by and could get to her? Put yourself in her shoes for a minute. If it causes her genuine distress then she is perfectly entitled to have the cause of this distress investigated AND prosecuted. Can you imagine if the anything happened to her at their hands after the Old Bill told her they were just a couple of numpties? The press would be on it like the stink on s**t! Who can quantify how many people may have been put off escalating social media abuse into something more physically harmful by these prosecutions? You can't! I think if you're daft enough to post these threats then you've got to accept the consequences when the Old Bill come through your front door just before dawn. I believe the female who was jailed has 2 previous convictions for assault. Nice girl!

The story of the boxer tracking down the "bell end with a voice" on twitter was amusing. www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cu ... uYv-vZ9I18 T'was just a bit of fun apparently. You can apologise on telly as much as you want matey, but you have caused damage. Some of could be profoundly psychological to some.

The story of the boxer tracking down the "bell end with a voice" on twitter was amusing. www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cu ... uYv-vZ9I18 T'was just a bit of fun apparently. You can apologise on telly as much as you want matey, but you have caused damage. Some of could be profoundly psychological to some.

Oooh, at last, I'm being abused. I was feeling left out. Nice one though. [iad hominem[/i from Word No. 1 - typical smokescreen tactics from you.


I know, and typically for you, the point whooshes spectacularly over what passes for your head. Let me try to explain in small words. If someone threatens (for example) to kill or rape you, in circumstances where you are genuinely put in fear that they mean it and they might, then the fear is instilled, the damage is done, the extreme distress is caused. On media like Twitter, it may be worse, as you may very well have no clue who the perceived threat is, and thus no way of defending yourself against it.

The point is the making of the threat, and the effect on the individual. Whether upon investigation it turns out to have been "credible" is entirely beside the point.


If, on the other hand, she happened to be the first person they went on to rape or murder, then that'd have been OK, then?


And you are indeed entitled to that opinion, however uninformed and misguided it is. My view is that an investigation rightly took place, and it seemed to the police that crimes had been comitted and there was both a reasonable prospect of a conviction, and it was in the public interest to prosecute. The court clearly inidcated its view of the seriousness of what they had done in the time-honoured manner.


You'll have a long wait, then. Though probably not as long as the one to get the point everyone else gets.

He's no stranger to "keyboard warriorism" himself as I recall!

So, Peter Nunn, the vile troll has been very reasonably [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29411031jailed for 18 weeks[/url. The principle has been established and in my opinion the sentence is not unduly harsh, but a very reasonable and measured dose of justice for what he did. Let us hope that similarly deluded trolls who think they can be as vile as they want with impunity, get the message they maybe they can not.

interesting turn of events.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-29501646

interesting turn of events.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-29501646

Quote ="EHW"interesting turn of events.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-29501646'" I'm struggling to see how she "trolled the McCanns on twitter", when the McCanns don't have a twitter account.

Quote ="EHW"interesting turn of events.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-29501646'" I'm struggling to see how she "trolled the McCanns on twitter", when the McCanns don't have a twitter account.

And if anyone is really interested, there's a collation of Brenda Leyland's tweets [url=http://greptweet.com/u/sweepyface/sweepyface.txtHERE[/url

Suggests someone obsessed with the whole sorry situation.