I have to admit i feel torn over this issue.
Criado Perez welcoming the jailing of two individuals who made twitter threats to her. The fact they came from two social inadequates with some element of learning difficulties and or emotional/ psychological problems and there was no reality of them putting into actions their threats.

I think 12 weeks imprisonment is to much ( that is a legal justice issue). I would guess that for each of them 2 nights in prison would have been more than enough to scare them less

BUT

can the police be investigating everytime some drunk, social inadequate, unfunny humourist, mentally ill keyboard warrior send a post, tweet or a email and then prosecuting them.

Surely they could have just investigated this pair gone back to the complainant and said they are just social inadequates we are taking it no further and that if you go on these social media sites you jsut have to accept that you will get some crap.

Even her comments at the time about women's rights (" This is not a joyful day; these two abusers reflect a small drop in the ocean, both in terms of the amount of abuse I received across July and August, but also in terms of the abuse that other women receive online – women who have little to no recourse to justice". sound somewhat hollow when it is about a couple of social inadequates. You would hope she never looks at a porn site or checks anything else out on the internet if she is worried about negative attitudes to women.t

Collymore crying now because some Liverpool fans did not like what he said about Suarez. Even with a racial or threatening connotation to them it is not really solving the problem.

If you dont want people to have a go at your opinion whether it is right or wrong then keep your mouth shut even if you get lots of crap back..

I haven't a clue who the first person is that you've mentioned but I saw the tweets that Collymore (and Piers Morgan) was getting and they went far beyond what you'd normally class as "banter" or "crap" and he and West Midlands Police are correct in stating that action needs to be taken, the fact that Twitter is reluctant to get involved is unfortunate for them and the only thing that will make them sit up and take notice is if investors/advertisers start to see the product linked to loony-toons and social misfits.

I say that without any allegiance to any football team at all - which is where the problem started in my opinion - and I say it without any knowledge of what the hell he was commenting on in the first place other than it seems to be an ex-professional footballer pointing out that professional footballers cheat by diving, well no sherlock but well done for pointing out the bleeding obvious anyway.


Edit : Now I know who Criado Perez is and yes, the stick that she took for simply suggesting that a woman should be on a banknote does fall into the realm of "are these twitter account holders sane enough to be allowed out of the house".

I don't know the details but if a judge found it "hard to imagine more extreme threats" then this destroys your argument. Social inadequates they may be but as they were clearly criminally responsible for the actions then why should such inadequacy give them [icart blanche[/i to threaten to rape or kill? Is that in fact a serious suggestion? That you call the police, but if the Tweeter is a "social inadequate" then they should be allowed to carry on?

Collymore is alleged to have received racist abuse and death threats. Is it your opinion that these should be allowed on here? If not, what's the difference?

A couple of days ago, gymnast Beth Tweddle [url=http://storify.com/EverydaySexism/sky-sports-news-live-q-and-a-with-beth-tweddle-twi/slideshowwas on the receiving end of pretty disgusting abuse[/url because she was doing a live Q&A.

Similarly, Jenny Green, after a brief and ridiculously innocuous blog on the [iTelegraph[/i about being the lone Green in the Lords received a crazy amount of abuse. [url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jennyjones/100255600/its-not-easy-being-the-only-green-in-the-house-of-lords/[iTelegraph[/i blogs editor Damian Thompson – no shrinking violet – actually commented himself and called some of the posts "foul"[/url.

And then, of course, there's Mary Beard, who has also received absolutely vile abuse – not least for not being a 20-year-old blonde with plastic tîts.

Then there was the abuse of Tom Daley – before he came out.

Between all these – plus the case of Stan Collymore – it would suggest that neither class nor race nor sex nor sexuality are the sole issues. [iTorygraph[/i readers and posters are not, generally speaking, lumpen proles. Daley was not known to be gay. Collymore is not female ... and so on.

So what is going on?

• Are such attitudes and behaviour new or does technology merely bring them to the fore?

• If it's new, what has given rise to it?

I think that, where threats are made, it's right for the police to act.

But I do worry about other forms of abuse being punished by the law.

To clarify: I've had abuse online (on Twitter) and in the street (well before the likes of Twitter had been dreamed up).

I've never reported anyone and cannot imagine a situation where I would. I've usually given some back, laughed at them or, in a particular instance on Twitter, simply blocked a bunch of abusive twoks (who were a mix of male and female). Although it's also true that, when I was less confidant, there were incidents that were really hurtful – came out of the blue, on the street, from total strangers who apparently believed they could take a look at me and abuse me to my face.

In some ways, they're risable. In my personal experience of abuse on Twitter, they rooted through the pictures I'd posted and decided that, on that basis, they knew my sexuality and relationship status – I was a lezza and clearly living on my own and had never had a relationship and so forth. They're actually that dumb. It's almost funny.

One of the problems, IMO, is that by making an issue of some of the abuse (as opposed to direct and specific threats – see above) is there a risk that we create a culture of victimhood, which then creates more victims?

Are these a new – and more easily done – form of the poison pen letter? What would have been the punishment for sending those?

There are a number if things that should concern people, but cause should be the main one, within an historic context of abusive behaviour (if we can work one out).

Maybe it's linked to a general disillusion with politicians of all flavours and a sense, inspired or given credibility by nasty mainstream media, that helps it to, apparently, blossom.

After all, a day or so ago, the [iSun[/i's front page headline was berating Collymore as a hypocrite because he has been a domestic abuser in the past.

Yet the same paper (and it is not alone) promotes attitudes of hatred and resentment. It feeds off and profits from social and economic inequality. It itself bullies and harasses people, and promotes by stealth a view of those that succeed in various walks of life as being fair game.

One trouble, though, is that if 'abusive' messages start being prosecuted, it becomes entirely subjective – and who gets to decide on that?

Are we ultimately just lumbered with a society in which a substantial number of people a dumb little fücks – or are there larger issues at play? And in either case, how do we sensibly deal that – if we should?

I would feel a lot happier if the police were dealing with physical Racist attacks, real sexual abuse of women and children rather than spending, time, resources, money etc chasing up idiots who make racist, sexist or threatening posts on some ridiculous social media site.

To me it is a bit like th situation in the 80s where you had some anti racist groups being involvrd in directly challenging racism in the community and some academics sat in universities saying, Blackboard was a racist term.

To me it it actually smacks of tokenism.

So a bit like you berating others on here for wearing poppies, then?

I had an encounter last weekend on FB. Someone (who imo should have known better) posted a thinly veiled racist and assumptive "joke" about benefit claimants. I said I didn't find it very funny, not all benefit claimants are like that and they shouldn't listen to the media propaganda, I stood up for something I believe in and shared a difference of opinion........cue the bullying remarks to me, goading me into responding, taking the pi$$, posting derogatory remarks, all behind a keyboard. None of those people knew me or my situation. And I can bet my mortgage none of those people would say what they did to my face [ibecause[/i they don't know me or how I would react, but because they are behind a keyboard surrounded by other comments and can't see you in the flesh they think you're fair game. Its not fair game, bullying is bullying no matter what. I've been bullied all of my life from school to the workplace (I must have "mug" written on my forehead

) and if one thing I've learned is that bullying is only done by cowards.

Oh, they're cowards, HWS.

Bust as I questioned: what's behind that apparent growth in abusive behaviour?

Is it simply that technology allows it – and apparent anonymity – or are there other issues.

And good for you, incidentally.

Thanks

I personally think its because they are not face to face and know they aren't going to get a punch in the chops for saying what they do. And because others read it and may agree with them and so they start with the comments (mob mentality?) and I do actually think there are people out there who think because its not face to face and no personal contact they are immune. FB isn't as anonymous as Twitter imo, most people use their full name on FB with pictures of themselves whereas Twitter is a bit more anonymous.

Only if you are too stupid to understand the point being made or wanting to make a clever comment by taking things out of context !

Next you will be going on about walt Disney , racism and me having Mickey Mouse as an avatar.

I reckon when it comes to tokenism you are a great contender.

Do you therefore believe that the written word is irrelevant, that prejudice can only be spread and inflicted if it is spoken ?

No.

But i think that someone coming up to you in the street and saying, " you should die" is a bit more threatening and serious than someone typing a message on a social media site saying " you should die". Even if accompanied with racist or misogynist language.

Investigating the first and dealing with it would be a better use of resources than chasing and prosecuting idiots who post messages on social media.

Why? The words still mean the same thing - typed or spoken. Thats the problem - because people see words on a screen they think they're different to spoken words and they're not.

If those 2 things were happening at exactly the same time and the police could only deal with 1 incident then yes I'd hope they dealt with the "spoken" threat first. But since that's not the case what you're effectively saying is the police shouldn't investigate a crime because a more serious one either has or might happen somewhere else. If that were the case then only murders would ever get investigated.
If a crime, any crime, is reported or seen by the police I want them to investigate it.

Also there are plenty of cases where a written threat very quickly turns into a "spoken" threat or actual violence. Especially against women.

Quote ="Him"If those 2 things were happening at exactly the same time and the police could only deal with 1 incident then yes I'd hope they dealt with the "spoken" threat first. But since that's not the case what you're effectively saying is the police shouldn't investigate a crime because a more serious one either has or might happen somewhere else. If that were the case then only murders would ever get investigated. If a crime, any crime, is reported or seen by the police I want them to investigate it. =#FF0000Also there are plenty of cases where a written threat very quickly turns into a "spoken" threat or actual violence. Especially against women.'" 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?

Quote ="Him"If those 2 things were happening at exactly the same time and the police could only deal with 1 incident then yes I'd hope they dealt with the "spoken" threat first. But since that's not the case what you're effectively saying is the police shouldn't investigate a crime because a more serious one either has or might happen somewhere else. If that were the case then only murders would ever get investigated. If a crime, any crime, is reported or seen by the police I want them to investigate it. =#FF0000Also there are plenty of cases where a written threat very quickly turns into a "spoken" threat or actual violence. Especially against women.'" 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?

Do you know what minty. I'm not sure there has been a growth in abusive behaviour. It is simply more visible.

My hunch is that anyone can say something about someone and get away with, but the act itself may not necessarily be on the increase.

And you know my thoughts about how people talk to people on this forum.

Living a particular distance from a victim and (probably) not having the means to carry out a threat is not a licence to give out abuse. Simply choosing Twitter to dish out that abuse rather than a phone call or a letter or face to face is not a licence to give out abuse.
I feel both cases exposes some real s who are better off not involved in the world.

As to if it's on the rise and why: I saw a poster on the tube promoting a teleconference service this week that said "people type tougher than they talk. Get them on a call and hear those 'cant's' become 'cans"
The step beyond that of course is from a call to F2F where people become even more agreeable.

There's another couple of forums I use where it's the norm to use your actual face as an avatar and many posters use their real name as a username. The "forum wars" and abuse are far less than it is here where anonymity is the norm.

Since you whinge about the 'badges' other people wear, you might wish to try consistency.

And next time you want to claim that they're 'tokenistic', you might want to make sure you have a clue what you're wittering on about – and explain to us all what your fandabbydosy record is; other that a few hysterical rants on a forum.

You could start, for instance, by describing any winning strikes you've led. Should be easy for an ultra-leftist.

I think that's a good point.

In recent years, I've made a point, when registering anywhere new, of using my real name and avatar.

Mind, when I mentioned that on one newspaper forum, I met hysterical, paranoid ranting about opening oneself up to stalkers.

I find it is usually a general lack of respect for others and especially toward those who don't hold the same opinions.

People who feel the need to swear and abuse others usually do so because they are incapable of forming an argument.

Similar to what you have just done on the Austerity thread then when you called a 13 year old boy who may or may not have had ambitions to become prime minister later in life an 'arrogant little teenage tosspot'.

I also find it ironic that you choose to label others 'dumb little f**ks' whilst at the same time complaining of their abusive behaviour.

Try to stay on topic. I love the political insult.

Last refuge of s liberal scoundrel like you when they are found out is to use the ultra leftist label. It is exactlt the same term that stalin and his cronies used to describeof anyone who criticised the USSR.

Your just a social chauvanist and a political opportunist. You will happily attack nationalism when it is popular but not attack it when it is unpopular. Against the Gulf war but all for the Falklands i bet.

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.