Two year sentences for Trolls

HelenMeg wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/02/abuse-dossier-kate-gerry-mccann-police-madeleine

Guardian reports :

A dossier of online abuse directed at the parents of Madeleine McCann is being examined by police.
Members of the public have handed to Scotland Yard a file stretching to more than 80 pages of tweets, Facebook posts and forum messages aimed at Kate and Gerry McCann, according to Sky News.

HelenMeg wrote:I wonder if we can find direct reference to when Gerry possible denied handing over dossier or having anything to do with it. Someone evidently wishes to make it clear that he / they did.
Was it an interview or report - i'm trying to find it but having no success.

Humphrys: Let me just talk to you, briefly, if I may, about something else; this
business of the woman who was trolling' - to use that expression, on
Twitter. Some pretty vile abuse against you. What do you think should happen to
people like her, who do that sort of thing?

McCann: Well the first thing to say is I think some of the internet trolling is
fuelled partly by the newspaper reporting. And if that was more responsible I'm
sure we would have less of the former. Clearly something needs to be done about
the abuse on the internet and I'm glad to see that there have been a number of
people who have either been taken action by the police. I think we probably need
more people charged. we should

Humphrys: Should this woman be charged? The woman who's been ..

McCann: I haven't read her tweets, John. And I think that is an issue that our
behaviour is modified by this. We do not have any significant presence on social
media online. And I've got grave concerns about our children, as they grow up
and start to access the internet in an unsupervised capacity.

Humphrys: In this particular case this woman was, as I say, pretty vile about
you and your wife and I mean it's er ..

McCann: Well there have been other instances where, you know, people are
threatening to kidnap our children, people are threatening violence against Kate
and myself. And of course, it's not just us. It's many other people who happen
to find themselves in rather tragic circumstances

Humphrys: So do you think the police should be more willing to prosecute? Or
should that be ..

McCann: Yes, and I'm glad to see that the law around this area has been
reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing
damage.

Humphrys: This particular woman, well you say you haven't read what she's
written yet, but do you think perhaps ..

McCann: And I'm not going to.

Humphrys: You're not going to?

McCann: No, because it is upsetting. It causes us severe distress. There is so
much vile nonsense written on the internet.

WMD wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I wonder if we can find direct reference to when Gerry possible denied handing over dossier or having anything to do with it. Someone evidently wishes to make it clear that he / they did.
Was it an interview or report - i'm trying to find it but having no success.

Humphrys: Let me just talk to you, briefly, if I may, about something else; this
business of the woman who was trolling' - to use that expression, on
Twitter. Some pretty vile abuse against you. What do you think should happen to
people like her, who do that sort of thing?

McCann: Well the first thing to say is I think some of the internet trolling is
fuelled partly by the newspaper reporting. And if that was more responsible I'm
sure we would have less of the former. Clearly something needs to be done about
the abuse on the internet and I'm glad to see that there have been a number of
people who have either been taken action by the police. I think we probably need
more people charged. we should

Humphrys: Should this woman be charged? The woman who's been ..

McCann: I haven't read her tweets, John. And I think that is an issue that our
behaviour is modified by this. We do not have any significant presence on social
media online. And I've got grave concerns about our children, as they grow up
and start to access the internet in an unsupervised capacity.

Humphrys: In this particular case this woman was, as I say, pretty vile about
you and your wife and I mean it's er ..

McCann: Well there have been other instances where, you know, people are
threatening to kidnap our children, people are threatening violence against Kate
and myself. And of course, it's not just us. It's many other people who happen
to find themselves in rather tragic circumstances

Humphrys: So do you think the police should be more willing to prosecute? Or
should that be ..

McCann: Yes, and I'm glad to see that the law around this area has been
reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing
damage.

Humphrys: This particular woman, well you say you haven't read what she's
written yet, but do you think perhaps ..

McCann: And I'm not going to.

Humphrys: You're not going to?

McCann: No, because it is upsetting. It causes us severe distress. There is so
much vile nonsense written on the internet.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10453-transcript-of-last-friday-s-radio-4-today-john-humphrys-gerry-mccann-interview

Geowoo wrote:The McCanns have a media monitoring unit...admitted at a hearing in Portugal. It doesn't stretch my thinking to surmise that posts (anti-McCann) were harvested, collated and eventual dossiered. . To what end? Will they pursue everyone who doesn't buy their ""thesis".

Geowoo wrote:This:

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.

This not about trolling..this is to quell the ever rising voices who just don't believe this spoon fed crap!

sally66 wrote:I have never understood their obsession with what people are writing on social media.  Surely if your daughter had been abducted finding her would be your obsession.  As to people poring over the files I would be delighted because even if they were of the opinion that I had done something I would know I had nothing to hide and would think they could uncover the truth.  It would be like having an army of free helpers.

SixMillionQuid wrote: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.

So there will people sitting around gathering evidence for years, not saying a word to anyone, then running to the police like some spoiled brat complaining that someone hurt their feelings online?  

Joss wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote: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.

So there will people sitting around gathering evidence for years, not saying a word to anyone, then running to the police like some spoiled brat complaining that someone hurt their feelings online?  

That is what i posted earlier, who is going to monitor all of the thousands of online messages ??

Joss wrote:

sally66 wrote:I have never understood their obsession with what people are writing on social media.  Surely if your daughter had been abducted finding her would be your obsession.  As to people poring over the files I would be delighted because even if they were of the opinion that I had done something I would know I had nothing to hide and would think they could uncover the truth.  It would be like having an army of free helpers.

I agree, but i think there is more of an underlying agenda to all of this case than a missing child, IMO.

sharonl wrote:What do we know about this new law?  Has it been passed through parliament or is it still at the proposal stage?

Most of us only get the hear about the basis of a new laws but there is usually pages of detail written up and available to us but are rarely read.  There must be some official information relating to this somewhere.

sharonl wrote:What do we know about this new law?  Has it been passed through parliament or is it still at the proposal stage?

Most of us only get the hear about the basis of a new laws but there is usually pages of detail written up and available to us but are rarely read.  There must be some official information relating to this somewhere.

Lance De Boils wrote:"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.

BlueBag wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:"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.

Murk.

Sometimes stress and alarm to targets is necessary.

Who decides.

1984.

plebgate wrote:If anyone complains to the police about internet comments causing them stress or harm, they will have to show it.   People wont just be able to complain and expect people to be prosecuted.

Will they have to consult  a  doctor, will they have had to have had sick notes covering any period of time off because of the stress or harm.   Will they have to show that during the alleged stress and harm caused there have been no tv interviews, charity events, mixing with celebs etc. etc.

Stress and harm will have effects, effects which alter peoples lifestyle.   They will have to show this is the case surely before anyone can be prosecuted and wouldn't they have to bring documentary evidence of stress and harm to court?