The UK takes online 'hate crime' more seriously than domestic abuse

reply to post by bates


Political correctness run amok. It's obviously not a big deal beating your spouse, but boy hell fire will rain upon you should you dare hurt someone's feelings!

What a sick world we live in.

bates
Do you feel a law that locks people up for booting you in head is more worthy than one that locks kids up for tweeting stuff to celebrities?

You have cherry picked an example of someone not going to jail for assault, when you could quite easily find 1000's of examples of people being sent to prison - you have selectively picked evidence to back your point. Here is someone sentenced to jail for the same offence. Here is another, oh, and another!.

Besides, when has any "kid" been locked up for twitter abuse? Most convictions I've read about tend to be adults who should know better.

bates
Do you think a law that means kids are locked up for tweeting nonsense is designed to do anything other than keep people quiet and in their place?

No, it's a Police over reaction using a law that was written some 20 years before Twitter even existed. There is actually quite a bit of debate about looking at the Law and changing it, because sometimes the Police get it wrong.

However, do explain to me the difference between me threatening to kick your head in and rape your wife on the internet and doing it to your face. I personally do not think there is one, hence why they treat online threats as serious.

Your first example was to a journalist who ran a popular podcast and was very much in the public eye.

The second was some poor sod who got made an example of because he dared to joke about what became a celebrity child murder case. Are you from the uk? The jones family very much became celebrities after their daughter was kidnapped.

Genuinely have no idea what the point you're trying to make with the 3rd link is. The chap was arrested after making a joke on twitter and had to fight for years and years to get the conviction over turned. When the public backed him and celebrities jumped on bandwagon the law makers had no choice but to over turn it. He himself was a minor celebrity himself by the time it was over turned.

bates
Your first example was to a journalist who ran a popular podcast and was very much in the public eye.

I would hardly say "popular" - she's a local hack.

bates
The second was some poor sod who got made an example of because he dared to joke about what became a celebrity child murder case. Are you from the uk? The jones family very much became celebrities after their daughter was kidnapped.

Yes, I live in the UK and I don't think the family became "celebrities" in any description of the word and it is actually quite twisted of you to even suggest that. The girl was a normal, little girl - he made disparaging remarks. She was neither "rich" or "famous", which was your qualifying criteria.

bates
Genuinely have no idea what the point you're trying to make with the 3rd link is. The chap was arrested after making a joke on twitter and had to fight for years and years to get the conviction over turned. When the public backed him and celebrities jumped on bandwagon the law makers had no choice but to over turn it. He himself was a minor celebrity himself by the time it was over turned.

That was the point I was making - which kind of shows that this isn't about keeping us "quiet". At the end of the day though, the guy made a bloody stupid comment in public - had he stood in the Airport and said the same thing, he would have been arrested on the spot. That said, it has actually set precedent where things such as satire and irony have to be taken into account now, so it is unlikely anyone will be arrested and charged in the future for similiar acts - again, disproving your notion that the law is designed to silence us.

I note you chose not to respond to my previous post about the celebs being punished for things though.....

stumason
However, do explain to me the difference between me threatening to kick your head in and rape your wife on the internet and doing it to your face. I personally do not think there is one, hence why they treat online threats as serious.

edit on 24/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)

The difference is huge.

Firstly, me speaking to you now i have genuinely no idea who or where you are.

You could be one of 7 billion people anywhere on the planet.

the threat is not credible in the slightest and shouldn't be treated as though it is.

If i do it to your face it is very personal. I most likely know who you are if i do it to your face, i certainly know where you are and the threat is instantly a lot more credible.

If you threatened to kill me now i wouldn't think anything of it, it wouldn't upset or worry me in the slightest. It wouldn't affect my opinion of you either and I'd be happy to chat away to you tomorrow night about something else if it passes the time.

If you threatened me in the street I'd be worried, I'd not want anything to do with you. I'd not go to the police mind but I'd certainly alter my opinion and make a note to avoid you from the point onwards.

reply to post by bates


Kudos to you then

But many people out there wouldn't be quite so level headed. Also, seeing as you're talking about celebs, whoever is threatening them certainly does know who they are, where they live etc etc, so the threat could be more credible.

Likewise, many people convicted of offences on twitter are just norms against norms who do know each other.. There have been more than a few cases of teenagers and young adults taking their lives as a result of abuse they've had on FB and Twitter and, unfortunately, usually from Adults.

Which brings me back to a point I made earlier about each offence having to be treated on it's own merits.

Post me an example of a famous person killing themselves after getting called names or receiving threats on twitter.

Who kills themselves over a death threat anyway?

"I'm so scared someone is going to kill me after that twitter message I think I'll kill myself"

The big case where the media decided to delve into didn't exactly turn out to be as was initially reported either did it.

Turned out the girl who committed suicide was sending the abuse to herself.

reply to post by bates

The second was some poor sod who got made an example of because he dared to joke about what became a celebrity child murder case. Are you from the uk? The jones family very much became celebrities after their daughter was kidnapped.

I think you're confused there. April Jones parents remained dignified and (mostly) out of the public eye throughout their ordeal. I think perhaps you're thinking about the McCanns, parents of Madeleine, who disappeared in Portugal in 2007, and who set up a fund, toured the world and have never been far away from our media since...even though there still remains a huge doubt about the veracity of their story

bates
Post me an example of a famous person killing themselves after getting called names or receiving threats on twitter.

You're confused again, I never said that the celebs would kill themselves. I did say, however, that being well known means people know where you live, work and your family details, unlike me and you who could abuse each other all day but not know if we're in the same room, so there is a an element of risk that those threats could more easily be acted upon. Understand?

bates
Who kills themselves over a death threat anyway?

It's not specifically death threats people have killed themselves over, I don't believe I said that in fact and you're putting words in my mouth, but many have topped themselves from online abuse from trolls which is exactly the same thing.

One teenager, dead.

Another

And another...

...and another..

...sigh.... and another

See where I am going with this?

bates
"I'm so scared someone is going to kill me after that twitter message I think I'll kill myself"

Now you just being facetious...

bates
The big case where the media decided to delve into didn't exactly turn out to be as was initially reported either did it.

Which "big case"? Seems you're being selective or simply are just unaware about how often these things happen.

bates
Turned out the girl who committed suicide was sending the abuse to herself.

Who was this? Like I said, you're being selective when there are many, many examples of people committing suicide from online abuse, sadly. Just like you were being selective with Mr Headkicker, when there are many, many more examples of exactly the same sort of offence and people being imprisoned.

reply to post by destination now


People knew who they were.

They were all over the telly and newspapers.

They were celebrities in most people's eyes.

Anyway, of all the tings to pick up on in this thread that is an absurd one.

You just looking for something to argue about again?

reply to post by stumason


The first link was hannah smith.

Here is the family she comes from

www.leicestermercury.co.uk...

Oh yeah, and she was sending the messages to herself.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The second link you posted the girl had been under the care of a psychiatrist most of her life and had huge problems. Rather ignorant of you to blame social media for that, shows how little you understand mental illness.

It was also someone who knew her doing the bullying.

Did you even bother to read that page you posted?

The third link was again people who knew the girl bullying her. It wasn't random abuse on the internet, it was real life stuff.

The fourth link.

A 14-year-old girl hanged herself after an argument with her mother, an inquest has heard.

The last link was a blackmail case.

You really don't have a clue what you going on about in this thread do you?

You have a lack of even the most basic understanding of this topic and yet go around posting like you're an expert on it.

You can't separate the real world, real life things like blackmail and mental illness with what happens on the twitter feed of a celebrity.

You're not even trolling are you, you genuinely can't tell the difference.

bates
reply to post by stumason

 

The first link was hannah smith.

Here is the family she comes from

www.leicestermercury.co.uk...

What exactly has that got to do with the price of fish in Grimsby?

bates
Oh yeah, and she was sending the messages to herself.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

So say the website - but identical IP's are not proof the same person is doing it if that was even the truth.

bates
The second link you posted the girl had been under the care of a psychiatrist most of her life and had huge problems. Rather ignorant of you to blame social media for that, shows how little you understand mental illness.

Once again, putting words in my mouth!! I really wish you'd stop it. I never blamed social media for anything, if you actually read my post instead of just trying to poke holes (badly), you'd see I was responding to your rather facetious comments about people killing themselves as a result of abuse. Whether she had a history of mental issues or not is neither here or there - the fact she was being taunted online is what drove her to commit suicide, the mental health issue just being an aggravating factor.

I also never claimed to be an expert on mental illness, but likewise, if you're such a bloody expert (despite it being painfully obvious you are not) then you'd know that those who do suffer are more prone to acts of self-harm.

I'll tell what is ignorant though, is you're comment in a previous post, where you are clearly dismissive about the effects of online abuse:

bates
Who kills themselves over a death threat anyway?

"I'm so scared someone is going to kill me after that twitter message I think I'll kill myself"

Rather hypocritical of you to start being a patronising twat to me about mental illness, isn't it?

bates
It was also someone who knew her doing the bullying.

So? It's proof that abuse is abuse - it matters not if the person is someone you know or someone you don't.

bates
Did you even bother to read that page you posted?

The third link was again people who knew the girl bullying her. It wasn't random abuse on the internet, it was real life stuff.

Again, the law makes no distinction and it is unclear why you think it matters whether someone needs to know their abuser or not. In fact, it very much appears you are attempting to shift the goalposts here. Abuse is abuse - end of.

bates
The fourth link.

A 14-year-old girl hanged herself after an argument with her mother, an inquest has heard.

Ah, my bad. I didn't even mean to use that one - I had quite a few tabs open. I distinctly remember dismissing it but must have closed the wrong tab when formulating my post.

bates
The last link was a blackmail case.

Still online abuse using threatening communications - they were going to share with his family and threads the intimate details of conversations he thought he had been having with a girl.

bates
You really don't have a clue what you going on about in this thread do you?

Erm, you're twisting in the wind here.

You started this thread apparently to show there is some difference between how the rich and famous are treated. I have shown that not to be the case, by giving you many examples of the "rich" being punished.

You have simply ignored this post.

You also have tried to make out that "real" crimes aren't treated as seriously as "online" crimes - again, I have shown this to not be the case as each one has to be taken on it's own merits. You cited an example of the man being kicked in the head alongside the twitter trolls for that feminist woman. I have shown how he escaped prison and why they were sent down.

You have simply ignored this - well, you gave a flippant remark about knowing how the law works, which then begs the question if you do, why are you making such a song and dance about because you should know the differences between the cases you have used as evidence..

If you really wanted to, I can find you stories of twitter trolls who weren't sent to prison. You selectively pick your stories to try and make a point.

You are now trying to shift the debate into the realms of "mental illness" - quite why I don't know. I only used examples of suicide to demonstrate that online abuse is as effective as "real" abuse, which is why people take it seriously.

bates
You have a lack of even the most basic understanding of this topic and yet go around posting like you're an expert on it.

Actually, you have been shifting the goalposts throughout the thread. Apparently, you point was about the rich and famous getting special treatment, yet you have not actually shown any evidence of this.

bates
You can't separate the real world, real life things like blackmail and mental illness with what happens on the twitter feed of a celebrity.

No, you can't - which is my point! Read what you wrote, seems basic grammar skills elude you... All things are equal under the law...

bates
You're not even trolling are you, you genuinely can't tell the difference.

There is no difference - online abuse is viewed the same as abuse in the street, just covered by a different law is all. You're the one who is having the cognitive failure here, not I...

Why do you keep quoting the law to me?

I know what the law is.

I'm having a go at the law.

If the law can't tell the difference between online nonsense and real life stuff it's wrong and made by people, who like yourself, genuinely don't have a clue what they're going on about.

I hope for the sake of society this is just your online act and you don't really believe this stuff in real life.

Claiming real life harassment is the same as some daft tweets is probably one of the most ignorant and offensive things i have ever read on this board.

And if online is the same as real life, do you often bring up specific cases of child suicide to try to prove your point at work?

bates
Why do you keep quoting the law to me?

Erm, because you made the thread about the Law... Duh...

bates
I know what the law is.

Clearly not as well as you might think, otherwise you'd be able to determine why each and every one of the examples you have posted ended the way it did, as I have pointed out to you. For example, you compared the Headkicker to these trolls, I clearly demonstrated why he avoided a custodial sentence while the trolls got 8 and 12 weeks respectively, which seems to be something you're having great difficulty with.

bates
I'm having a go at the law.

Yup - that much is clear - but as pointed out you have begun your argument based on some rather wonky assumptions.

bates
If the law can't tell the difference between online nonsense and real life stuff it's wrong and made by people, who like yourself, genuinely don't have a clue what they're going on about.

Ironic really as it is you having the cognitive failure. The law see's no difference between being remotely abused to being abused in person and for the people concerned, I doubt they see much difference either, especially for the young and impressionable who seem to take it the worst.

I am quite confused why you seek defend the behaviour of people who openly threaten someone with death or rape - be it online or in person, such things cannot go unchallenged.

bates
I hope for the sake of society this is just your online act and you don't really believe this stuff in real life.

Not at all, I have no "online act" - I would defend my position as vociferously in person as I am now.

bates
Claiming real life harassment is the same as some daft tweets is probably one of the most ignorant and offensive things i have ever read on this board.

A bit melodramatic, no? The "most offensive and ignorant" thing you've ever read - get real, you great softy.

Harassment can take many forms and it is you who is belittling one over the other. To put it in some sort of context, prior to social networking, many stalkers would begin with ominous phone calls, letters or other communications before moving on to far darker things which, in some cases, lead to the death of the person being stalked at the hands of the stalker. This is no different.

bates
And if online is the same as real life, do you often bring up specific cases of child suicide to try to prove your point at work?

Don't be so stupid. I brought up "specific cases of child suicide" to argue a specific point you had raised - that online abuse is not harmful. For those who suffer from it, it can be and in a world where more and more of the lives or people is conducted online, especially by the younger generation, is it not as "real" as "real life"? And you have the cheek to say I don't know what I am talking about - it seems it is rather the opposite.

It is telling you cannot actually form a coherent argument for your position, instead opting for personal attacks against myself and, indeed, have noticeably ignored posts of mine with examples that disprove your original assertion - namely that the rich or powerful (not that Caroline Criado-Perez could be described as either) get special treatment.

reply to post by stumason


Why do you keep quoting everything I say, are you really struggling that much to follow the thread.

Also why do you keep repeating yourself?

Are you a bit slow or something?

How many times do I have to say I understand the law but disagree with it? I don't get how you're struggling with that.

Finally, I don't get what you posting about those children committing suicide does to strengthen your position against me.

If you really believe they killed themselves because of nasty messages surely it just proves my point that the laws are designed to protect the rich and famous.

Are you just posting because you want to argue? You don't really seem to b be arguing anything, you're just disagreeing with everything I say for some reason.

bates
Why do you keep quoting everything I say, are you really struggling that much to follow the thread.

Also why do you keep repeating yourself?

Are you a bit slow or something?

It's my posting style, which stems from years of seeing people go back and edit their posts after I reply - it also helps make it clear what exactly I am replying too.

It's funny you think I am slow, cute even, given your apparent inability to understand simple concepts.

bates
How many times do I have to say I understand the law but disagree with it? I don't get how you're struggling with that.

I'm not struggling with it, I simply disagree with your position. It is you struggling with the concept, not I.

bates
Finally, I don't get what you posting about those children committing suicide does to strengthen your position against me.

Aww, bless, you thought I was slow. I have said, a couple of times now, I used those examples to show to you that online abuse has a very real affect on some people in response to your assertion it does not.

bates
If you really believe they killed themselves because of nasty messages surely it just proves my point that the laws are designed to protect the rich and famous.

Huh? How did you leap to that conclusion? That's like saying you don't like apples because you once ate some shrimp and didn't like it - two totally unrelated concepts. It is rather sad that you cannot grasp the fact I used those examples to prove that online abuse has an effect, quite what that has to do with "laws are designed to protect the rich and famous" is a bit of a mystery.

bates
Are you just posting because you want to argue? You don't really seem to b be arguing anything, you're just disagreeing with everything I say for some reason.

Usually, when people disagree with someone it is because they believe that the person is wrong. I am actually arguing in quite clear language and my position is understandable for even the most mentally challenged to wrap his mind around.

Again, do try to debate the topic, not the person. I have shown, in this thread, why the Trolls got what they did in comparison to the Headkicker you posted about and also that the "rich and famous" do get punished. One could ask what exactly are you arguing here, because you have shifted the goalposts on several occasions and have neglected to even address half of my posts asserting my position, instead resorting to attacking me directly. Rather immature, really.

Anyhoo, unless you actually have any more to add, I am done. I have better things to do - Unless of course you can actually bring anything more to the table to prove your assertion instead of ad hominem attacks against myself?

You do nothing but debate the person.

You were arguing with me, not debating the topic, right from the start of the thread.

It's the reason you start to flesh out your posts with quotes, it's a common intimidation tactic that has been used on the internet for years. You can hardly claim it's to stop people editing their posts when you've edited virtually every single one of your posts in this thread.

You've even admitted you're not quite sure what the point i'm making is several times in this thread but still you continue.

I've made one personal remark, when i questioned if you were a bit slow.

I've made that for a reason.

You just keep saying the same thing over and over and over despite me pointing it out several times you still persist.

You accuse me of going off on a tangent when you've tried to bring everything possible into this thread. If i chose to ignore blatantly ridiculous things (Ian Watkins for god sake, what on earth did you post about some fella who tried to rape a baby for?) you seem to chalk that up as some sort of victory.

When I do respond to your ridiculous posts you again chalk that up as some sort of victory.

I never said the rich and famous never get into trouble, that just absurd. I said the laws were there to benefit the rich and famous and keep them on a level above us.

You're argument against that appeared to be posting a load of articles where children have killed themselves.

Surely even you can see how mental that looks, it's just bizarre.

You don't think certain laws are there to benefit the rich and famous rather than the general population.

I do.

Not sure where you've been trying to go with it for the last 36 hours if i'm honest.

I just found this in your post history where you were having a pop at america for their heavy handed treatment of people for saying things.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

stumason
reply to post by Swills

 

Ah, a different rule for you guys then - they made a "threat" so that deserves Prison time and you're ok with it, but if you abuse someone over here based on race or religion and get a caution for it, that is somehow against Freedom of speech... Gotcha

The first guy ("threat" against a school) could have been dealt with by way of a visit by Plod, maybe an arrest and questioning with the prospect of a caution, but in no way does it deserve being thrown in Prison. The same with the other guy making "threats". Going in heavy handed and throwing the book without actually looking into the context and making a sensible decision is typically an American trait though.

The two tourists were victims of a "cultural" misunderstanding - taken out of context, the word destroy could be inferred to be a threat, but taken in context of what they were going to do, it clearly means they are going to party. Another way of saying this could "we're going to rip up the town" or "paint the town red". That doesn't mean they are actually going to rip the town up, or actually paint it, but rather just have a good time. It is, however, not surprising that your famously dim-witted LEO's didn't actually see the subtlety in the language and take it in context, but rather took it literally.

Seems you've changed your tune since then, hey kid.

reply to post by bates


I for one am happy at the abuse he got or gets...NOT read any of the abuse but i do not care.

This piece of crap Stan Collymore is a coward and a savage.


He beat the crap out of his girlfriend at a bar in paris....made the news a couple of years back!! PUNCHED AND KICKED HER IN THE HEAD!!

Deserves what he gets.

Stan Collymore the Girlfriend beating coward!!

bates
reply to post by destination now

 

People knew who they were.

They were all over the telly and newspapers.

They were celebrities in most people's eyes.

Anyway, of all the tings to pick up on in this thread that is an absurd one.

You just looking for something to argue about again?

Err no, the Jones family were never seen as celebrities, just as victims of a terrible crime, I really do think you are confusing them with the McCanns who threaten anybody who dares to question their story with legal action (via Carter Ruck, paid from their private fund, which was donated by a very generous public)

I picked it up because you mentioned the parents of April Jones somehow being part of a nefarious circle of celebs who are protected, which they are not, it is you who is being absurd for even trying to connect the parents of a tragic child murder case with celebs who get preferential treatment.

And I don't understand your last comment that I'm just looking for something to argue about again? What exactly do you mean?