Probe into web slurs on Hillsborough disaster and murder of James Bulger

Probe into web slurs on Hillsborough disaster and murder of James Bulger

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

POLICE are investigating a Twitter user who is alleged to have posted vile slurs about the Hillsborough disaster and the murder of James Bulger.

The tweets, which repeated myths about the behaviour of Liverpool supporters during the 1989 tragedy and made sick “jokes” about the toddler’s death, were posted by an anonymous account under the name “Old Holborn”.

Yesterday, Essex police confirmed they had launched a probe after complaints were made about the account – suspected to be run by a man

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk
www.thisistotales sex.co.uk
www.essex.police.uk
www.bbc.co.uk

We've had this before with the people of Liverpool who are extremely sensitive when it comes to anything being sad about their city (thankfully the CPS saw sense and threw the last case out).

What worries me here is someone is expressing views that although unpleasant to most of us really don't warrant any intervention from the authorities or the police, yet they have to investigate.

It seems to me this isn't being reported to protect people, it's more being done out of malicious intent and in the hope it can get someone into trouble.

I think the fact a certain twitter account is bragging about this in a rather gloating manner shows to everyone what the actual intent is here.

Telling someone to pipe down is one thing, trying to get someone jailed and lose them their job because you don't like something they say is just taking to an extremely nasty place.

There certainly seems to be a pattern emerging here, say something WE don't like and WE will try to make you pay. That's not what the malicious communications act is supposed to be about and those who are abusing it should be the ones facing criminal charges.

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by bates


We've had this before with the people of Liverpool who are extremely sensitive when it comes to anything being sad about their city (thankfully the CPS saw sense and threw the last case out).

What worries me here is someone is expressing views that although unpleasant to most of us really don't warrant any intervention from the authorities or the police, yet they have to investigate.

It seems to me this isn't being reported to protect people, it's more being done out of malicious intent and in the hope it can get someone into trouble.

I think the fact a certain twitter account is bragging about this in a rather gloating manner shows to everyone what the actual intent is here.

Telling someone to pipe down is one thing, trying to get someone jailed and lose them their job because you don't like something they say is just taking to an extremely nasty place.

There certainly seems to be a pattern emerging here, say something WE don't like and WE will try to make you pay. That's not what the malicious communications act is supposed to be about and those who are abusing it should be the ones facing criminal charges.

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

As a Liverpool fan (Even if I was the fan of someone else) I find this disgusting. How full of hatred do you have to be to post this type of malicious, repulsive crap online? How immature must this persons mind be? He's like a child who likes to shout insults at people and then run away!

Whilst I agree that he doesn't deserve jail and that there is no need for an investigation about this; I do feel he needs to be caught, and his punishment should be to repeat what he just said to the faces of 50 Liverpool fans.

It seems to me this isn't being reported to protect people, it's more being done out of malicious intent and in the hope it can get someone into trouble

reply to post by bates


But it is being reported to protect people. The families of the hillsborough victims. You know, one of the biggest police and government cover ups ever...you remember??......

reply to post by TheDoctor46


Well to me, this looks like a government driven test to see how well they can get the public to silence people on the internet.

Make people too scared to question the official story.

Get people to threaten those who dare to speak out.

It starts with people not beiong allowed to question something that happened 24 tears ago for fear of reprisals, it ends with you not being to speak out against anything at all.

I find that very scary, I'm suprised more people don't.

"You can't say that, someone might be upset"

Can people say what they think happened on 9/11, will people be allowed to speak out against wars in iraq and afghanistan?

No you can't, because it might upset the families of the victims. Stick to what you're told, be quiet and never say anything about anything ever again.

Indeed, and an apology to James Bulgar's family as well too. His death was appallying and without going into detail his body was severed. That is just so vile and horrific. Anyone who thinks to make malicious and offensive comments about that needs their head examining.

Originally posted by bates

Well to me, this looks like a government driven test to see how well they can get the public to silence people on the internet.

Make people too scared to question the official story.

Get people to threaten those who dare to speak out.

It starts with people not beiong allowed to question something that happened 24 tears ago for fear of reprisals, it ends with you not being to speak out against anything at all. I find that very scary, I'm suprised more people don't.

Isn't that the exact same thing the government did with the official Hillsborough story, buried it under the rug and hid the truth from the public?

The family of the victims weren't allowed to speak out about what really happened.

Your OP and replies reek of complete Irony!

reply to post by Chipkin9


When weren't the families allowed to speak out?

Were people threatened with jail for speaking out in 1989

Originally posted by bates
reply to post by Chipkin9

 

When weren't the families allowed to speak out?

Were people threatened with jail for speaking out in 1989

People were not threatened, no.

But the truth was hidden, or "Silenced".

And questions about the "official" story were absurd.

You are protecting the vile scumbag who made these remarks.

Fair enough everyone is entitled to their opinion without being threatened jail; but you are also saying he can't "Question the official story".

The REAL TRUTH and "Official story" has just came out, acknowledging the failings of the police that day, and that the allegations of The S*n newspaper was all BS.

And you're questioning that, after the real truth has come out

Originally posted by Chipkin9

Originally posted by bates
reply to post by Chipkin9

 

When weren't the families allowed to speak out?

Were people threatened with jail for speaking out in 1989

People were not threatened, no.

But the truth was hidden, or "Silenced".

And questions about the "official" story were absurd.

You are protecting the vile scumbag who made these remarks.

Fair enough everyone is entitled to their opinion without being threatened jail; but you are also saying he can't "Question the official story".

The REAL TRUTH and "Official story" has just came out, acknowledging the failings of the police that day, and that the allegations of The S*n newspaper was all BS.

And you're questioning that, after the real truth has come out

i'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to question the official story, i'm quite clearly saying the opposite

i'm saying if this guy feels the liverpool fans were to blame, he should have a right to voice these opinions.

i'm saying he should have the right to go against the 'official story'.

Originally posted by bates
We've had this before with the people of Liverpool who are extremely sensitive when it comes to anything being sad about their city (thankfully the CPS saw sense and threw the last case out).

That's because we're proud of our city even though it's far from perfect, and why shouldn't we take offence about anything being said if it's untrue? Of course we're going to speak out against unfair criticism. What do you suggest? That we just ignore it like placid little lemmings? No thanks, we have spirit, a quality lacking in many a drab town in the U.K.

i agree with you Bates, i think over all people who use the net have to realise that they can come into contact with pretty much all human life and the views held and expressed therein may well make them want to puke... but at the end of the day - so what? if they were in a pub or on the bus and overheard such remarks would they call the rozzers? pretty daft idea if you ask me.
they may instead choose to ignore it or challenge it. in general terms for me it's fairplay that if someone goes way way overboard verbally and doesnt stop or apologise when challenged and just carries on then they should have the guts to expect a fist in their face and not to go crying about it.
if you go online, you have to steel yourself to this stuff, it aint a protected little bubble that we sit in at our computers/mobiles etc etc, even though it feels that way as we are in our homes much of the time.... it's a big wide world on tinterweb.

I think we should be allowed to express ourselves freely without fear from govs. If you dont like what's being said you can respond. You may get into a heated debate or nasty slagging match but it shouldn't be against the law. I dont know what happened at Hillsborough except the cover up part & the Bulger case should be treated with respect & compassion.We were all kids once & no one wants to die, especially like that. But that's my opinion & yours might be different. But I wouldn't want laws against such a disagreement.

reply to post by bates


Free speech is one of the most important rights that remain unto us as Britons. The right and DUTY to speak
from ones heart, speak the truth, and express ones artistic flair are valuable to me, and to the correct function of any society worth being a part of, or at least worth saving from the jaws of oppression.

However, that right comes with a responsibility, as do all rights. One has the right to speak freely, but one does not have the right to abuse that freedom to the point of vindictiveness and xenophobia. And make no mistake, wether the finger of hate is pointed from one end of a nation, toward the other, or from one continent toward another, that is what this is.

Unreasoning hatred is not something to be embraced, or supported. I have no problem with people who use stereotyping to produce laughs, or as part of an artistic effort of some sort. But using a public communication to abuse an entire group of people, with actual hate, without the merest hint of an attempt at humour? As I have said, I support free speech, but I cannot support the right of this man to abuse my fellow man, my fellow countrymen in this manner. He has failed in his responsibility, and abused his rights.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by bates

 

Free speech is one of the most important rights that remain unto us as Britons. The right and DUTY to speak
from ones heart, speak the truth, and express ones artistic flair are valuable to me, and to the correct function of any society worth being a part of, or at least worth saving from the jaws of oppression.

However, that right comes with a responsibility, as do all rights. One has the right to speak freely, but one does not have the right to abuse that freedom to the point of vindictiveness and xenophobia. And make no mistake, wether the finger of hate is pointed from one end of a nation, toward the other, or from one continent toward another, that is what this is.

Unreasoning hatred is not something to be embraced, or supported. I have no problem with people who use stereotyping to produce laughs, or as part of an artistic effort of some sort. But using a public communication to abuse an entire group of people, with actual hate, without the merest hint of an attempt at humour? As I have said, I support free speech, but I cannot support the right of this man to abuse my fellow man, my fellow countrymen in this manner. He has failed in his responsibility, and abused his rights.

Sorry fella, you totally contradict yourself here.

Just because YOU don't like what he says or agree with it, doesn't mean millions don't agree with what he says.

You can't pick and choose freedom of speech, it either is or isn't.

He may be a thoroughly horrid, disgusting creep.. but that is his freedom to be so.

reply to post by Mister_Bit


Thats just exactly the point. One has the freedom to speak, but one does not have a right, enshrined in law, to be a foul, degenerate, hateful wretch, worthy of nothing more than being found floating face down in a septic tank, and summarily boiled in acid. Nor does one have the right, enshrined in law, to poke at the open wounds of an entire region, to probe with barbed tongue, the scars of painful memories, and tarnish an entire group of people, based on an idiotic and under informed view of the world.

One has a responsibility, that comes along side ones right to free speech, to ensure that ones speech is fair, just and serves a deep and fully moral purpose. Otherwise all that free speech achieves is a stinking morass of a future, full of hate, bile and vitriol, and utterly lacking in anything approaching decency. That is not the design laid down by a right to free speech. That is an abuse of the intent behind its placement in our creed and ethos as a nation, and should dismay and disgust us all.

Edit to add:

Also, given that this is a UK case, it is entirely possible that the particular attention we in the United Kingdom pay to matters pertaining to defamation with regard to free speech, may see the perpetrator of this vile spew fall foul of various acts of parliament and attendant laws.

councillorahmedkhan.blogspot.co.uk...

A brilliant blog piece here and some rather disturbing reaction to it (i presume it is all true).

Shows you what sort of people you're dealing with, and the risk we all have to take everyday to make sure we all have a voice.

I had a couple of rows with old Holborn on Twitter.
I deleted him in the end because I realised he was just a stirrer.
His comments on whatever subject were only ever about causing anger, not about reasoned debate.

As far as free speech goes, saying bad stuff on the net is cowardly.
If you think you could walk up to someone and say some of the things you do without getting in a fight, then you're deluded, and if you aren't prepared to do that, you shouldn't be saying the same stuff anonymously on Twitter.

The other side of free speech is the understanding that there are lines you may cross and if you do, someone is going to call you on it.

Finally there have been almost a quarter of a century of lies about Hillsborough. Lies perpetrated by the establishment, enhanced and expanded upon by the media and kept alive by people with all sorts of agendas. After that, to expect the friends and fellow fans of the victims to sit still and keep quiet when someone picks at this particular scab, is unrealistic in the extreme.
Old Holborn wouldn't say this stuff in the Sandon on match day, so he shouldn't have said it on twitter either.

reply to post by Mister_Bit


And all actions, even the expressing of thoughts, have consequences. If you choose to openly be a disgusting, gutter-minded creep, you have to take the rough with the smooth. Contrary to the description, free speech does have a price and if you want to say your piece, sometimes the fee can be more than you can afford. As Old Holborn seems to have discovered..

reply to post by bates


Bates, the reactions to the twitter abuse of Liverpool residents is NOT an example of genuine free speech being clamped down on, nor is it reflective of the vast percentage of reasonable uses of free speech that we see every day from all corners of the nation.

There is no support in law, for a person to be able to libel and slander individuals or groups willy nilly. The subject of the response to Old Holborns idiot comments, and the subject of freedom of speech are NOT related in any realistic manner, since his comments are defamatory and therefore do not, unless proven absolutely and unquestionably accurate (which they cannot be) fall within the freedom of speech bracket. His prattle actually puts him in breech of several laws, which, should legal proceedings be bought, will no doubt see him justly slapped with a significant financial penalty, as they bloody well should.