[Durham Giant]

Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:54 pm  

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 shitless

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..

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:03 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

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 shitless

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 inadeqautes we are taking it further and that if you go on these social media sites you jsut have to accept that you wil get some crap.

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 poop 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".

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:12 pm  

District Judge Howard Riddle wrote:

... the effects on both women were "substantial" and it was "hard to imagine more extreme threats".

Ms Criado-Perez felt "terrified" every time the doorbell rang, he said, while Ms Creasy had a panic button installed at her home.

The judge said of the abusive tweets: "The fact that they were anonymous heightened the fear.

"The victims had no way of knowing how dangerous the people making the threats were, whether they had just come out of prison, or how to recognise and avoid them if they came across them in public."

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 cart blanche 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?

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:25 pm  

A couple of days ago, gymnast Beth Tweddle was on the receiving end of pretty disgusting abuse because she was doing a live Q&A. Similarly, Jenny Green, after a brief and ridiculously innocuous blog on the Telegraph about being the lone Green in the Lords received a crazy amount of abuse. Telegraph blogs editor Damian Thompson – no shrinking violet – actually commented himself and called some of the posts "foul". 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. Torygraph 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 Sun'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?

A couple of days ago, gymnast Beth Tweddle was on the receiving end of pretty disgusting abuse because she was doing a live Q&A. Similarly, Jenny Green, after a brief and ridiculously innocuous blog on the Telegraph about being the lone Green in the Lords received a crazy amount of abuse. Telegraph blogs editor Damian Thompson – no shrinking violet – actually commented himself and called some of the posts "foul". 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. Torygraph 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 Sun'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?

[Durham Giant]

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:41 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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 cart blanche 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?

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.

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:49 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

... 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?

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:56 pm  

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 because 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.

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:09 pm  

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.

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:20 pm  

Mintball wrote:

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.

[Durham Giant]

Re: Cyber Bullying : Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:38 pm  

Mintball wrote:

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

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.