Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:48 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

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.

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

[Durham Giant]

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:41 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

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.

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:46 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

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.

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:42 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

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.

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.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:21 pm  

Him wrote: 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. I agree with that as does Women's aid http://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?

Him wrote: 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. I agree with that as does Women's aid http://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?

Re: Cyber Bullying : Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:28 am  

Mintball wrote:

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..

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.

Re: Cyber Bullying : Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:48 am  

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 lovers 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.

Re: Cyber Bullying : Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:15 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Cyber Bullying : Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:19 pm  

Richie wrote:

... 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.

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.

Re: Cyber Bullying : Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:53 pm  

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.