Crackdown on 'corrosive' online hate crimes launched by Crown Prosecution Service

JimbobJones wrote:Just a quick question, when did it actually become an offence to "hate" something? Surely that is a blow to freedom. Of both expression and human rights.
When did this nonsense start?

It is as dumb as the "war on terror" . I hate all sorts of things, mostly injustice and those who get away with it. And those who COVER UP the crimes of others. I hate crimes of all kinds but mostly those against the helpless. I hate the right and left wings equally. The list go's on and on. Am I even allowed to exist anymore?

JimbobJones wrote:Just a quick question, when did it actually become an offence to "hate" something? Surely that is a blow to freedom. Of both expression and human rights.
When did this nonsense start?

It is as dumb as the "war on terror" . I hate all sorts of things, mostly injustice and those who get away with it. And those who COVER UP the crimes of others. I hate crimes of all kinds but mostly those against the helpless. I hate the right and left wings equally. The list go's on and on. Am I even allowed to exist anymore?

The Media is the Biggest Hate Group in America

ChippyM wrote:
  I wonder who else will be using these tighter rules on 'trolls' to shut down discussion?  

Verdi wrote:An interesting perspective from across the pond..

http://www.blogworld.com/2012/07/18/what-is-an-internet-troll-the-answer-might-surprise-you/

ETA:  There are far more challenging issues going on across cyberspace that need to be immediately addressed and eradicated - like terrorist networks!  Fannying about worrying what spiteful words are spat between online posters is nothing compared to the serious problems rapidly gaining strength by way of the internet.

It's a very dangerous tool in the wrong hands.

ChippyM wrote:I hate the term 'trolling' I refuse to use it as it's emotive and silly.
  

Cmaryholmes wrote:Alison Saunders wasn't exactly what you would call 'robust' and 'proactive' when it came to 'Lord' Janner, was she?

ChippyM wrote:Someone is talking on 5 live radio now, apparently this guy is convinced it has to be 'sustained' and cause serious effect to be considered a crime. It can't just be saying you dislike someone online according to him.

   There's a big focus on 'trans' hate and homophobia in all the rhetoric around this, I don't believe that's the focus at all.

• Madeleine vanished from holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, May 2007
  
  
• In March, Home Office granted Met Police £85,000 to cover costs of her search
  
  
• Cash for probe into disappearance ends in September but police to ask for more
  
  
• Now parents Kate and Gerry have backed new rules against trolling on their Find Maddie website ".........."
  
  

ChippyM wrote:Some of the DM comments. Most of them are like this.  Re. The last one, how handy would it be to just wrap the case up and say it's unsolvable after even the UK's finest police spent years on it?  Very handy for some.

"Is it 'trolling' when they're only criticising leaving a 3 year old to baby sit two twins? I don't think so."


"More transparency, please, about how much of the public money donated and spent on this case goes on the McCann's PR and legal costs."



"We are scared to debate, discuss and voice our opinion on line least we will be called trolls..one mistaken word or mis interpretation of your opinion.. you will done.. where is the freedom of speech there ?''


"After so many years and so much money, surely it is time to say the cops don't know? If I was still a UK taxpayer, I'd be saying enough is enough.''

JRP wrote:I watched BBC news a couple of weeks ago, and the last item was about Donald Trump. 
Something along the lines of, Donald Trump is going on summer holiday playing golf. Vladimir Putin however, is doing something completely different, he's going fishing!
Then on ITV news, Donald Trump is going on summer holiday playing golf. Vladimir Putin however, is doing something different, he's going fishing!
Then on local radio, Donald Trump is going on summer holiday, he's off playing a few rounds of golf. Vladimir Putin however, is doing something totally different, he's going fishing! 


So do they get their stories from a single source, or is it just simple co-incidence that they all run this story with very similar words?

We're all in it together!

JRP wrote:I watched BBC news a couple of weeks ago, and the last item was about Donald Trump. 
Something along the lines of, Donald Trump is going on summer holiday playing golf. Vladimir Putin however, is doing something completely different, he's going fishing!
Then on ITV news, Donald Trump is going on summer holiday playing golf. Vladimir Putin however, is doing something different, he's going fishing!
Then on local radio, Donald Trump is going on summer holiday, he's off playing a few rounds of golf. Vladimir Putin however, is doing something totally different, he's going fishing! 


So do they get their stories from a single source, or is it just simple co-incidence that they all run this story with very similar words?

We're all in it together!

Verdi wrote:

JRP wrote:I watched BBC news a couple of weeks ago, and the last item was about Donald Trump. 
Something along the lines of, Donald Trump is going on summer holiday playing golf. Vladimir Putin however, is doing something completely different, he's going fishing!
Then on ITV news, Donald Trump is going on summer holiday playing golf. Vladimir Putin however, is doing something different, he's going fishing!
Then on local radio, Donald Trump is going on summer holiday, he's off playing a few rounds of golf. Vladimir Putin however, is doing something totally different, he's going fishing! 


So do they get their stories from a single source, or is it just simple co-incidence that they all run this story with very similar words?

We're all in it together!

Indeed, it happens all the time - evidenced by the many reports relative to the McCanns.

My concern here is why they are reporting on the private holiday arrangements of two foremost world leaders?

Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned - is that the sort of message being broadcast here?

JRP wrote:.... but instead he's a golf wimp.

ChippyM wrote:Just what we need. More prosecutions for dumb things people say online. Never mind the rapists and abusers that get given a slap on the wrist and go on to ruin multiple lives, the dwindling resources of the police are going to be concentrating on the intarwebs.

  I wonder who else will be using these tighter rules on 'trolls' to shut down discussion?  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hate-crimes-social-media-crown-prosecution-service-home-office-prejudice-a7903166.html


''Changes 'will remind the trolling brigade that there are real consequences for hitting the button' and will 'undoubtedly lead to an increase in prosecutions'

Hate crimes committed on social media will be treated as seriously as similar street-based offences, according to new guidelines issued by the Crown Prosecution Service as they launch a crackdown on hate speech online.


Recognising the “corrosive effect” of hate crime on British society, Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, announced the CPS will now revise prosecutions of such crimes “with the same robust and proactive approach used with offline offending”. 


The changes could lead to a dramatic increase in those being prosecuted for posting prejudice attacks on social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.


Jenny Wiltshire, the head of general crime at Hickman and Rose solicitors, told The Independent the change in policy from the CPS reflects “the fact that the internet has become a breeding ground for misogynist, racist and homophobic views”. 


She continued: “The decision to treat offences committed online no differently from offline offences will undoubtedly lead to an increase in prosecutions. It will also remind the trolling brigade that there are real consequences for hitting the button”.

BlueBag wrote:The Thought Police.

Orwell saw it.