Two year sentences for Trolls

plebgate wrote:Where's that photo when you want it of Mrs. sitting on Mr's lap at the friends house.    Didn't look very stressed in that one imo.

You wouldn't't have to search too far to see the REAL mcCoy

Sorry Geowoo what does the REAL McCoy mean.

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.

Stress???  Well it`s inevitable one would be stressed if thousands of people didn`t believe your lies.

"Doctor, please help me - I`m really stressed because some people don`t believe the lies I`ve told"

plebgate wrote:Sorry Geowoo what does the REAL McCoy mean.

The real McCoy is simply truth..evidence..lndisputable facts! Something you can't argue with.

Thanks Geowoo I thought you were sending a cryptic message.  lol.

Oh and wouldn't any complainant have to give evidence under oath.   If so, would any defence solicitor be able to ask questions too?

plebgate wrote:Thanks Geowoo I thought you were sending a cryptic message.  lol.

Oh and wouldn't any complainant have to give evidence under oath.   If so, would any defence solicitor be able to ask questions too?

In light of today's news I am tempted to be cryptic. This case has never seen a court of law and truth is a figment!. If you want the truth you will have to wait and wonder.

Geowoo wrote:

plebgate wrote:Thanks Geowoo I thought you were sending a cryptic message.  lol.

Oh and wouldn't any complainant have to give evidence under oath.   If so, would any defence solicitor be able to ask questions too?

In light of today's news I am tempted to be cryptic. This case has never seen a court of law and truth is a figment!. If you want the truth you will have to wait and wonder.

I didn't answer you correctly.. Bit tired.

Brenda Leyland has slipped conveniently into a background of media silence.. I won't shut up.. BBC breakfast and Judy finnegan..Carole Malone who called the lady a "fecked up bitch"..please come out and justify your comments..

Come on Carole Malone.. Judy Finnegan... Lorraine GMTV. And all you disgusting little sycophants..tell me why I should do two years in jail just because I don't believe you pitiful bunch!

Quite exhausted myself there... But no one was hurt.

Woofer wrote:

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.

Stress???  Well it`s inevitable one would be stressed if thousands of people didn`t believe your lies.

"Doctor, please help me - I`m really stressed because some people don`t believe the lies I`ve told"

Causing stress and alarm to their targets is precisely what the media does and many lost Court cases prove that it does.

The McCanns being one of the many.

The Levenson Inquiry highlighted many more.

One unfortunate " target " was Brenda Leyland.

The very idea that internet forums and Twitter are more threatening than a front page full of lies read by millions of
readers or a news item suggesting x y or z may be guilty of something they haven't done does not usually land the
editor or producer of the programme in jail for two years.

 Perhaps it should?

It's not often I would agree with Gerry McCann but the media lead the charge on reporting news and Twitter Facebook etc all follow
the current trend ( or trending as it's known ) on which everybody pronounces on. People take a view and get carried away in their
arguments. The trolls are then trolled. But we shouldn't confuse the threateners with the people who genuinely don't agree with what is being said in the discussion.

There are many sites where some awful racism and denigrating of disabled people is occuring but no-one shouts much about these people or what is said on these sites/forums.

The thing is with the latest " trolling " reports are that they appear to only concentrate on people in the public eye. There must be thousands out there who have been treated just as badly but because they are not famous no-one is bothered about them.

Being around the Madeleine forums from the start I have seen a lot of words written on blogs/forums  etc re: the McCanns and all of the sites relied on what the media were putting out in order to further their respective arguments and opinions. To be fair on forums I've read over the years there is very little vitriol against the parents and a lot of sympathy with the fate of Madeleine. Whereas Twitter seems to attract the
sensationalist phrasing because if you are goaded you have to reply in less than 140 words. That cannot be a discussion just point scoring in my opinion so it's inevitable  that tempers get frayed. It's not ideal for discussion - just soundbites. Even so it is up to the individual to be
aware of what they are typing because if the moderating is poor -what you wrote in a drunken haze last night will be there in the morning for all to see.

In this particular tale it is always better to try and stick to the facts as emotion is what the MSM want us to play with in order to play with us all. Twitterers or not.

Opinion.

https://www.facebook.com/McCannTrollsDossier?fref=nf

Absolutely disgraceful Facebook page

Silverspeed wrote:https://www.facebook.com/McCannTrollsDossier?fref=nf

Absolutely disgraceful Facebook page

Screen shot IT!

C&P 'tweets'.

I too am wondering where this is heading but don't we reap what we sow? No one HAS to be on Twitter or Facebook or forums. If I didn't like what I was reading here I would leave, I don't and never will use Twitter and as for FB I just block anyone if I don't want to see their posts, presumably Twitter has a similar thing. I also know where the off button is on my computer! If people don't like it and don't want to see it then don't go there!  I don't swim with sharks either!

For me this just exemplifies why I post here. The loss of a young child was absolutely tragic but I wouldn't be posting here 7 years later about that event if it wasn't for what Team McCann have been doing to our liberty.

They have completely locked down the UK mass media. They have created a situation where people - as in the worst totalitarian systems - have to declare white is black and black is white. The only people allowed to appear on UK media talking about this case are those who (a) swear that they did no wrong...even though we know at the very least (by their own admission) that they left their children alone in a foreign apartment in distress (b) completely ignore all the inconsistencies in the Tapas 9 accounts (c) completely ignore PJ files and (d) pretend Amaral doesn't exist. Anyone in the media who doesn't follow this code loses their job or gains no preferment. To take a recent example - Katie Hopkins said she was going to post something about the McCanns shortly ... did she? No. Presumably her manager took her to one side and explained, you can say what you like about a lot of things, but the McCann case is one of those things you just can't speak about.

Now Team McCann are trying to lock down the UK social media. I don't think their real target is sad people on twitter making nasty (and reprehensible*) threats. Their real target is sites like this, but even more so the sorts of sites that suddenly pop up discussing the case...and which, given the nature of the internet/twitter, might at any moment mushroom into an influential source of info on the case.

In short Team McCann is trying to lock down ANY expression of dissent from the brain-dead "Lorraine Kelly" version of what happened.

They are trying to deprive us of our liberty. That we must oppose, as Brenda did.

*For the avoidance of doubt - I completely condemn people making personal threats on social media. I've had threats made to me and it's not very pleasant. However, we should not allow the McCanns to use this as camouflage for their wider purpose.

joti26 wrote:I too am wondering where this is heading but don't we reap what we sow? No one HAS to be on Twitter or Facebook or forums. If I didn't like what I was reading here I would leave, I don't and never will use Twitter and as for FB I just block anyone if I don't want to see their posts, presumably Twitter has a similar thing. I also know where the off button is on my computer! If people don't like it and don't want to see it then don't go there!  I don't swim with sharks either!

I agree that people don't have to put up with crap on the various internet sites, FB & Twitter. I'm glad i don't do FB or Twitter from what i have heard about those sites. And i have left forums where people are rude and like to stir things up just for the sake of hijacking a forum, where things get too personal, i am out.
I think people that resort to the really horrible stuff and personal threats should be immediately banned, especially when there are personal threats. That should always be a big no no wherever it happens.
It really is a matter of what people are willing to tolerate IMO.

Joss wrote:

NickE wrote:Sonia Poulton and Katie Hopkins on Sky.

What are they saying, i don't get sky. TIA :)

Sky News debate between Sonia Poulton and Katie Hopkins 2014-10-19

NickE wrote:

Joss wrote:

NickE wrote:Sonia Poulton and Katie Hopkins on Sky.

What are they saying, i don't get sky. TIA :)

Sky News debate between Sonia Poulton and Katie Hopkins 2014-10-19

Thanks for posting the vid. Nick. Just reinforces to me that i'm glad i don't do Twitter, LOL.

Two years for trolls? Reminds me of Tony's 4 years for mobile phone snatchers, while people committing far more serious crimes got lesser sentences. Didn't work out so well, eh?

NickE wrote:

Joss wrote:

NickE wrote:Sonia Poulton and Katie Hopkins on Sky.

What are they saying, i don't get sky. TIA :)

Sky News debate between Sonia Poulton and Katie Hopkins 2014-10-19

so how comes Richard and Judy's complaint CAN launch a police investigation, but a complaint to "three divisions of the Metropolitan Police" by Sonia Poulton results in her being told "they can do nothing"??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805056/Richard-Madeley-makes-official-complaints-police-online-rape-threats-daughter-Chloe-hands-substantial-evidence.html

Judy Pissedagain and the real life "Alan Partridge" she is married to are also fully paid up media whores who will tell you the sky is down and the ground is up if their teleprompter or script says so. They have no interest in questioning anything if doing so means their cushy lifestyle and privileges are put at risk. Their "model" daughter would probably get passed over for an Eastern European if she was an ordinary woman who applied for a job cleaning toilets.

Sonia Poulton is one of very few "mainstream" journalists who dare to question this fairytale we have all been questioning since 2007.

P.S. When the "tr*ll" furore broke out, the media managed to get a quote from Dom Joly, and pass it off as "widespread outrage". Dom Joly FFS. That's the best they could do, outside of the usual sycophants and media c***suckers. (Admin:- Censor if you need to).

I believe people like Ian Hislop, or outspoken commentators or comedians who usually have plenty to say on most subjects hold very different views from Malone, Kelly, Finnegan etc, but are just as afraid of losing their privileges. Katie Hopkins may or may not believe in the approved version, but will court some controversy by questioning it. Good for her, I say, but I really hope she does it for the right reasons.

Naz_Nomad wrote:Judy Pissedagain and the real life "Alan Partridge" she is married to are also fully paid up media whores who will tell you the sky is down and the ground is up if their teleprompter or script says so.  They have no interest in questioning anything if doing so means their cushy lifestyle and privileges are put at risk. Their "model" daughter would probably get passed over for an Eastern European if she was an ordinary woman who applied for a job cleaning toilets.

Sonia Poulton is one of very few "mainstream" journalists who dare to question this fairytale we have all been questioning since 2007.

P.S.  When the "tr*ll" furore broke out, the media managed to get a quote from Dom Joly, and pass it off as "widespread outrage".  Dom Joly FFS.  That's the best they could do, outside of the usual sycophants and media c***suckers. (Admin:- Censor if you need to).

I believe people like Ian Hislop, or outspoken commentators or comedians who usually have plenty to say on most subjects hold very different views from Malone, Kelly, Finnegan etc, but are just as afraid of losing their privileges.  Katie Hopkins may or may not believe in the approved version, but will court some controversy by questioning it.  Good for her, I say, but I really hope she does it for the right reasons.

Ian Hislop is from a very conventional military family background which I am afraid is associated with a certain network (the one that hardly ever gets a mention but which people in all walks of life who know about it will tell you is very influential) that has been fully supportive of the McCanns from Day One. I think Hislop's dereliction of satirical duty in this case has been appalling.

Could you imagine 'Have I Got News For You!'  if Hislop and Merton were allowed to say what they really thought about this case? The McCanns would be a comedy staple and get at least as many mentions as Bozza, Falklands Jezza and Nigel Farage put together!

In my opinion.

Who is on the secret Madeleine McCann Sky dossier?

Pat Brown's blog post and replies:

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/we-are-in-secret-madeleine-mccann-troll.html

This is all  reminiscent of the McCarthy witch-hunts.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Nick Cohen in today's 'Observer', extract below.  I'm disappointed in NC jumping to conclusions about BL's mental health.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/banning-peoples-views-even-internet-trolls-is-wrong

"Even though internet trolls are among the worst specimens the human race can offer up for inspection, there are many reasons not to nod through yet another hardline restriction of personal freedom. Interest groups like nothing better than exploiting the law. We’ve already seen supporters of the McCanns, who were understandably aggrieved by the abuse the family received online, turn into troll catchers. They collected a dossier and passed it to Sky News and the police. The hunters unmasked one of the McCanns’ tormentors as Brenda Leyland, who took her own life within hours of her exposure, a reminder that many trolls are mentally ill and need treatment rather than prison."

Ladyinred wrote:Nick Cohen in today's 'Observer', extract below.  I'm disappointed in NC jumping to conclusions about BL's mental health.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/banning-peoples-views-even-internet-trolls-is-wrong

"Even though internet trolls are among the worst specimens the human race can offer up for inspection, there are many reasons not to nod through yet another hardline restriction of personal freedom. Interest groups like nothing better than exploiting the law. We’ve already seen supporters of the McCanns, who were understandably aggrieved by the abuse the family received online, turn into troll catchers. They collected a dossier and passed it to Sky News and the police. The hunters unmasked one of the McCanns’ tormentors as Brenda Leyland, who took her own life within hours of her exposure, a reminder that many trolls are mentally ill and need treatment rather than prison."

Im not,they haven't got a clue so print shit like this

Comments is closed.  148 in total, one relating to BL:

community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
[*]
mogpot
26 October 2014 1:53am
Recommend
9
Brenda Leyland didn't threaten violence at all! Nick Cohen obviously didn't read her twitter feed. She was innocent and broke no laws. She didn't ever tweet the McCanns. She participated in discussions which is WHAT TWITTER IS FOR. Middle class thugs like Cohen and the McCanns clearly want to control ordinary people in this cruel, despicable way. What monsters these self-important media personalities are. Cohen's vile unsubstantiated accusations against Brenda Leyland show us that he has no idea what he even means by troll and until he can work out a definition for himself and share it with the class he should not be writing on this subject at all. I just hope the poor woman's son doesn't see this posthumous defamation of his mother. Shame on you Nick Cohen. This is very very bad journalism indeed.

Ladyinred wrote:Nick Cohen in today's 'Observer', extract below.  I'm disappointed in NC jumping to conclusions about BL's mental health.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/banning-peoples-views-even-internet-trolls-is-wrong

"Even though internet trolls are among the worst specimens the human race can offer up for inspection, there are many reasons not to nod through yet another hardline restriction of personal freedom. Interest groups like nothing better than exploiting the law. We’ve already seen supporters of the McCanns, who were understandably aggrieved by the abuse the family received online, turn into troll catchers. They collected a dossier and passed it to Sky News and the police. The hunters unmasked one of the McCanns’ tormentors as Brenda Leyland, who took her own life within hours of her exposure, a reminder that many trolls are mentally ill and need treatment rather than prison."

This is a very clever piece of journalism using a fairly common technique of getting the contentious bit in first,  before saying something more inflammatory later on to take your mind of it.

The real problem isn't that he's questioned BL's mental health (a low, but not particularly surprising stunt) - it's that this has taken your eye off his very first statement where he states, as fact, "internet trolls are among the worst specimens the human race can offer up for inspection". Are they really, Mr Rentanopinion? Well I for one beg to differ....

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Nick Cohen in today's 'Observer', extract below.  I'm disappointed in NC jumping to conclusions about BL's mental health.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/banning-peoples-views-even-internet-trolls-is-wrong

"Even though internet trolls are among the worst specimens the human race can offer up for inspection, there are many reasons not to nod through yet another hardline restriction of personal freedom. Interest groups like nothing better than exploiting the law. We’ve already seen supporters of the McCanns, who were understandably aggrieved by the abuse the family received online, turn into troll catchers. They collected a dossier and passed it to Sky News and the police. The hunters unmasked one of the McCanns’ tormentors as Brenda Leyland, who took her own life within hours of her exposure, a reminder that many trolls are mentally ill and need treatment rather than prison."

This is a very clever piece of journalism using a fairly common technique of getting the contentious bit in first,  before saying something more inflammatory later on to take your mind of it.

The real problem isn't that he's questioned BL's mental health (a low, but not particularly surprising stunt) - it's that this has taken your eye off his very first statement where he states, as fact, "internet trolls are among the worst specimens the human race can offer up for inspection". Are they really, Mr Rentanopinion? Well I for one beg to differ....

I agree with you, Clay.  I wanted to emphasise his ignorance and insensitivity towards an individual; BL is dead, there is no official confirmation of the cause of her death and she has a family who is grieving. Cohen obviously didn't read the comments written in response to Deborah Orr's piece a few weeks ago.