Two year sentences for Trolls

by Geowoo 19.10.14 8:32

Very sorry for not posting link... It's in the Daily Maill and Sky News.

There is a fair point to be made about abusive messages posted and directed straight to a target. No one should throw insults or threats to reflect their views..no matter how inflamed or angry they feel.
Jailing people for up to two years for heated opinions is punitive and suppressive..direct threats are another matter. I am hoping that this plan will be balanced and measured.
I can't help thinking,however, that we are being shut down and silenced.

by The....truth 19.10.14 8:48

It seems that there is considerable urgency to control the Internet in the UK.

Check out what is happening to Chris Spivey. And his undamaged front door.

Teresa May is talking about internet ASBOs for people designated by police or ministers, leading to a criminal offence. Especially for leaders of groups. Isn't there a push here to designate one person as the leader, or is that another coincidence ?

Now this, from the guardian ..http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/19/justice-secretary-chris-grayling-pledges-stiffer-sentences-for-internet-trolls

“This is a law to combat cruelty - and marks our determination to take a stand against a baying cyber-mob.
“We must send out a clear message: if you troll you risk being behind bars for two years.”
Under the current law, people who subject their victims to sexually offensive, verbally abusive or threatening material on the internet can only be prosecuted in magistrates’ courts under the Malicious Communications Act, which carries a maximum prison sentence of six months.
But the new measures will allow magistrates to pass on serious cases to the crown courts, where offenders would face a maximum of two years behind bars.
The change will be made as an amendment to the criminal justice and courts bill currently going through parliament.
They measures would also give the police more time to collect enough evidence to enable successful prosecutions to be brought.

The UK press is silenced and controlled by D notices and super inaudibles. Next in line are the individuals who question.
IMHO

by Bishop Brennan 19.10.14 9:51

The government has been embarrassed, caught out and exposed by news of the cover-up of the Westminster abuse scandals. Similar cover-ups that appear to involve the police and local government in relation to childrens homes have also been exposed. All of it by the internet.

The MSM has been completely and effectively neutered as an investigative or balancing force. It is now little more than a mouthpiece for PR and other agencies. As we know from the Saville and Catholic Church cover-ups, without the internet these things NEVER see the light of day. It was therefore inevitable that steps would be taken to control the one medium over which the authorities currently have none.

I suspect this is just the start. Expect any legislation to be extremely broad in scope and vague in nature to allow for sweeping interpretations as and when necessary.

by **PeterMac** 19.10.14 10:01

There is something particularly disgusting about the Mail including the McCanns in their article when we know that
Their paid trolls issued the most disgusting and threatening abuse against Brenda
AND Kate herself revels in saying things like this - in print

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

"I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". Nine days later, Madeleine's mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends "the whole" information to the PJ. "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.

Are we to suppose that this is well within the bounds of responsible publishing ?

by Bishop Brennan 19.10.14 10:07

PeterMac wrote:There is something particularly disgusting about the Mail including the McCanns in their article when we know that
Their paid trolls issued the most disgusting and threatening abuse against Brenda
AND Kater herself revels in saying things like this - in print

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.

I remember feeling such disdain for Ricardo at this point. What was he doing? I thought. Just following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’ This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man did not deserve my respect. ‘Fucking tosser . . .’

Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.

"I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't". Nine days later, Madeleine's mother receives a message from a woman that tells her that Murat tried to photograph the granddaughter of a friend, also three years old and blond, and Kate sends "the whole" information to the PJ. "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.

Are we to suppose that this is well within the bounds of responsible publishing ?

If we are to believe the Express and the new law... then that kind of cruel trolling suggests a 2-year stretch for Kate! prisoner

by ChippyM 19.10.14 10:16

I think 'troll' is the new term to discredit what was once known as a 'conspiracy theorist'. Too many people have noticed that conspiracy theories regarding cover-ups and government corruption are actually well founded and not in the least bit lunatic or 'nutty'.

Lumping all these people together as trolls paints them as rabid, sad, unstable, hate filled people and automatically associates anything they say as unworthy of any consideration by 'decent' and sensible person. It's a propaganda war.

What decent and sensible person would see the Gaspar statements as trolling I wonder? I have a feeling that if that statement was mentioned in MSM, McCann critics could no longer be referred to as trolls.

by Geowoo 19.10.14 10:44

ChippyM wrote:I think 'troll' is the new term to discredit what was once known as a 'conspiracy theorist'. Too many people have noticed that conspiracy theories regarding cover-ups and government corruption are actually well founded and not in the least bit lunatic or 'nutty'.

Lumping all these people together as trolls paints them as rabid, sad, unstable, hate filled people and automatically associates anything they say as unworthy of any consideration by 'decent' and sensible person. It's a propaganda war.

What decent and sensible person would see the Gaspar statements as trolling I wonder? I have a feeling that if that statement was mentioned in MSM, McCann critics could no longer be referred to as trolls.

It seems that Gerry McCann got his wish and "people should be made an example of".... This ties tidily in to Hacked off and Leveson....The "trolll" label is Ill defined and a catch all term which will be abused quite easily. beware

by jeanmonroe 19.10.14 10:50

So, how LONG, in jail, WILL 'the 'sick' PRO MCCANN 'SUPPORTER'' (Daily Mail), Cindy Martin (life threatening to BL 'troll') get?

And will MWT be 'tracking' her down and 'confronting' her?

He 'tweeted' on his twitter account that 'you have made life 'threats', which is a CRIME'

So he not only KNOWS about CM's 'threats' he also KNOWS they are 'criminal'

Did this extraodinary brilliant 'crime buster' REPORT C Martin's 'crime' to the Police?

If NOT, then WHY not?

He KNEW about her criminal 'activity'' didn't he?

HE TOLD US SO, ON HIS TWEETER ACCOUNT, THAT HE DID!

by **Nina** 19.10.14 10:54

I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.

by Woofer 19.10.14 11:01

GM - "Thou shalt make examples of all those that doth not believe in me"

Moses - "Aye, Aye Sir"

by **PeterMac** 19.10.14 11:05

Nina wrote:I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

by Geowoo 19.10.14 11:06

Nina wrote:I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.

This is exactly why someone needs to give it a legal definition...otherwise anyone simply venting and a little overheated could find themselves locked up! It's like North Korea!

by canada12 19.10.14 11:10

Similar story in the Sunday Times today, but it confirms that it was the McCanns who handed the dossier to the police.

Trolls face longer jail terms for spreading misery
Tony Grew
18 October 2014
15:57
sundaytimes.co.uk

© Times Newspapers Limited 2014

THEY are the modern scourge: cowards who use the anonymity of the internet to viciously abuse people by issuing threats to rape, mutilate or murder.

Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, better known for his tough stance on the European convention on human rights, has turned his fire on so-called trolls, people who use social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to harass and intimidate victims.

“People are being abused online in the most crude and degrading fashion,” Grayling said last night.

“We must send out a clear message: if you troll, you risk being behind bars for two years.”

Many of the victims of these trolls are women, among them the Labour MP Stella Creasy, the TV presenter Judy Finnigan and her daughter Chloe Madeley, and Kate McCann, the mother of missing Madeleine.

Last month McCann and her husband Gerry handed police an 80-page dossier containing hundreds of tweets, Facebook messages and posts from online forums abusing them and accusing them of being involved in the disappearance of their daughter. Some of the messages were directed at their other children, nine-year-old twins.

In September, a man who sent a string of abusive messages to Creasy was jailed.

She said: “We need to send a clear message that it isn’t for anyone to put up with being harassed via any medium — this is an old crime taking a new form online.”

The Communications Act 2003 bans online messages that threaten violence or cause stress or alarm to their targets. But the harshest sentence that magistrates can impose is six months in prison.

The government is to introduce amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which will be debated in the House of Lords this week, to allow a maximum penalty on conviction of two years in prison.

The period in which prosecutions can be brought against people for using the internet, social media or mobile phones to send menacing messages will be increased from six months to three years.

“The sending of abusive messages or material online can cause absolute misery for victims and we need to make sure that people who commit these awful crimes are properly punished,” Grayling said.

Creasy said that police had to ensure that victims were given proper support when they came forward. “Otherwise longer sentences will be little comfort to those still too often being told that because they are being harassed online it’s not serious,” she said.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.14 11:13

Nina wrote:I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.

It is fairly well defined in law already, see the Guardian article, quote:

"Under the current law, people who subject their victims to (1) sexually offensive, (2) verbally abusive or (3) threatening material on the internet can only be prosecuted in magistrates’ courts under the Malicious Communications Act, which carries a maximum prison sentence of six months".

Now, if we look at Brenda Leyland's extensive record of tweets:

were they sexually offensive? - NO

were they 'threatening'? - NO

were they 'verbally abusive'? - well, that is a very very grey area of the law.

On a worst-case scenario for the future, many of the comments made on forums like this about the McCanns, or say the Tapas 7, or Robert Murat, or Martin Smith, or Clarence Mitchell, might conceivably be classed as 'verbally abusive'.

If this new law is passed (2 years maximum in jail), as I expect it will be given the current 'anti-internet troll' climate, I would forecast that police forces and the CPS will be encouraged to test the law by bringing more cases to court in the 'verbally abusive' category.

If it succeeds in controlling some of the very hateful and abusive messages that some people spew out on e.g. Twitter, then I am all for the tougher maximum sentence.

But there's a concern that legitimate dissent could be curbed, especially in the light of David Cameron's assertion that to suggest that any arm of the government might have been in some way complicit in the 7/7 Londom bombings' is 'hateful'

by Lance De Boils 19.10.14 11:17

Nina wrote:I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.

Indeed. Because as it stands, the term 'troll' is being banded around willy nilly, as a 'catch all' phrase to describe anyone who voices an opinion which is in disagreement with others.

There should be made a clear distinction between direct, believable, threats of violence against a person or group and internet dissenters. There is a vast difference. Yet the MSM seem not to take that into consideration.

Disagreeing and questioning cannot alone be justifiably considered trolling. Yet I fear that could be the way this is heading.

(Is this part of a ploy to get people more supportive of European legal oversight?)

by jeanmonroe 19.10.14 11:18

Nina wrote:I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.

Can you hear the sound of champagne corks popping from lawyers chambers?

It will be a bonanza for them!

"Juries" having to decide if a comment was truthful, offensive, abusive, racist, fair comment, life threatening, not serious, or BAN-TERRR!

What if people 'tweet' from now on 'in the third person'

i.e. "I heard, someone said, did you hear? etc.,"

"someone said, JM (me) should get a good 'fonging' (my made up word)

Is that a DIRECT 'threat' TO me?

er, NOPE.

"Someone 'SAID'', someone's 'OPINION'

Are CR going to be 'ear wigging' on every street corner in case, they MIGHT 'hear' the McCann's case 'mentioned' in a 'private' conversation?

(Although, to 'lighten' the tone, people could say that I would possibly benefit from a good 'fonging'! (whatever 'that' is!) winkwink

by jeanmonroe 19.10.14 11:21

PeterMac wrote:
Nina wrote:I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

All i 'know' about Humpty Dumpty, is that, he is a BIG HEAD!

by **PeterMac** 19.10.14 11:28

Didn't Gerry say he was NOT involved in the dossier ?
Have the ST done it again ?

by ChippyM 19.10.14 11:29

Geowoo wrote:
Nina wrote:I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.

This is exactly why someone needs to give it a legal definition...otherwise anyone simply venting and a little overheated could find themselves locked up! It's like North Korea!

It's not going to happen. Threats and obscene abuse are the words used in law. 'Troll' is a media term and not a legal one and never should be for the reasons you state.

To me it seems that the law remains the same (apart from increase in sentence) but the use of the word 'Troll' by the media is a means to control people by fear of what could even remotely happen in law.

by Geowoo 19.10.14 11:40

I feel this is threatening and provocative in the shadow of Brenda Leyland's death. We have yet to hear anything about her and the events leading to her sad demise.. I have alarm bells ringing about all of this.

by Guest 19.10.14 11:47

PeterMac wrote:Didn't Gerry say he was NOT involved in the dossier ?
Have the ST done it again ?

Given the recent damages,they must be pretty certain.

by **Nina** 19.10.14 11:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nina wrote:I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.
It is fairly well defined in law already, see the Guardian article, quote:

"Under the current law, people who subject their victims to (1) sexually offensive, (2) verbally abusive or (3) threatening material on the internet can only be prosecuted in magistrates’ courts under the Malicious Communications Act, which carries a maximum prison sentence of six months".

Now, if we look at Brenda Leyland's extensive record of tweets:

were they sexually offensive? - NO

were they 'threatening'? - NO

were they 'verbally abusive'? - well, that is a very very grey area of the law.

On a worst-case scenario for the future, many of the comments made on forums like this about the McCanns, or say the Tapas 7, or Robert Murat, or Martin Smith, or Clarence Mitchell, might conceivably be classed as 'verbally abusive'.

If this new law is passed (2 years maximum in jail), as I expect it will be given the current 'anti-internet troll' climate, I would forecast that police forces and the CPS will be encouraged to test the law by bringing more cases to court in the 'verbally abusive' category.

If it succeeds in controlling some of the very hateful and abusive messages that some people spew out on e.g. Twitter, then I am all for the tougher maximum sentence.

But there's a concern that legitimate dissent could be curbed, especially in the light of David Cameron's assertion that to suggest that any arm of the government might have been in some way complicit in the 7/7 Londom bombings' is 'hateful'

Thank you Tony roses

It is the verbal abuse that for me is a very grey area. Could that be very subjective? Some things said to me that would abuse me, might just be shrugged off by let's say someone like yourself.

by Geowoo 19.10.14 11:51

jeanmonroe wrote:
Nina wrote:I think it needs to be clearly defined in law exactly what the term troll means before any persons can be accused of trolling.

Can you hear the sound of champagne corks popping from lawyers chambers?

It will be a bonanza for them!

"Juries" having to decide if a comment was truthful, offensive, abusive, racist, fair comment, life threatening, not serious, or BAN-TERRR!

What if people 'tweet' from now on 'in the third person'

i.e. "I heard, someone said, did you hear? etc.,"

"someone said, JM (me) should get a good 'fonging' (my made up word)

Loved your post but I daren't tell you what came to mind!!

Is that a DIRECT 'threat' TO me?

er, NOPE.

"Someone 'SAID'', someone's 'OPINION'

Are CR going to be 'ear wigging' on every street corner in case, they MIGHT 'hear' the McCann's case 'mentioned' in a 'private' conversation?

(Although, to 'lighten' the tone, people could say that I would possibly benefit from a good 'fonging'! (whatever 'that' is!)

by Geowoo 19.10.14 11:54

Sorry if I messed up with my posting... I'm new to this. Just wanted to comment on "FONGING" big grin

by TheTruthWillOut 19.10.14 12:00

PeterMac wrote:Didn't Gerry say he was NOT involved in the dossier ?
Have the ST done it again ?

Didn't BHH say on BBC radio that the family handed the dossier in? May be that is what the Times based that on.

by pauloptix 19.10.14 12:02

Web trolls to face two years in jail under 'Chloe's Law'

'Chloes Law'???? Two year sentences for Trolls 1801782399

Surely they mean 'Brendas Law'

by Liz Eagles 19.10.14 12:05

Jim Gamble, a staunch McCann supporter, a staunch advocate of the Winters and Goose book, and a staunch supporter of bringing 'trolls' to book doesn't think that all people downloading pornographic images of children should necessarily receive a prison sentence.

Two years imprisonment for 'trolling' (this is a made-up media term and not defined in law) is obviously ok to Jim then - but he does seem to have a vested interest in attaching himself to all things McCann - I can only surmise this because he has been so very vociferous of late in the media when there is simply no need.

Just my opinion as always.

by Geowoo 19.10.14 12:11

pauloptix wrote:Web trolls to face two years in jail under 'Chloe's Law'

'Chloes Law'????

Surely they mean 'Brendas Law'

Quite! Chloe Madeley is alive and,although she should not have to tolerate online abuse, she is quite able to fight her corner. Brenda Leyland cannot!

by Liz Eagles 19.10.14 12:19

Geowoo wrote:
pauloptix wrote:Web trolls to face two years in jail under 'Chloe's Law'

'Chloes Law'????

Surely they mean 'Brendas Law'

Quite! Chloe Madeley is alive and,although she should not have to tolerate online abuse, she is quite able to fight her corner. Brenda Leyland cannot!

A load of tosh. Chloe's law indeed - another pile of poop from the media.

Remember Sarah's Law? whatever became of that?

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-12-23/what-is-sarahs-law-background-to-the-nationwide-scheme/

Will we have Gerry's law soon?