Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
This case, where a 13 year old autustic boy was was murdered by two 14 year olds as after he apparently offended one of them on social media, was highlighted on the BBC this morning:
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/olly-step...ear-old/131979
What can happen with neuro diverse people is that they can inadvertently offend someone without meaning to or realising it and this is what may have happened here.
It is hoped that the Online Safety Bill will protect others from being subject to the violence and hate that Olly was exposed to.
It's suspected that young people are becoming desensitised to violence due to the sharing on videos that suggest violence.
Nadine Dorries has stated that material that is legal, but harmful, will shortly be defined to enable websites to comply with this.
Failure to do so could be dealt with by fines and those who fail to demonstrate to Ofcom that they are doing something about this risk becoming criminally liable and going to prison.
It's from about 0:22:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018kfc
This will be covered in more depth in tonight's Panorama on BBC1 at 8pm. |
Starts from 23min in.
It is a tragic case, but whilst social media has a lot to blame it isn't the cause. Take the Bulger case etc.
I don't understand in the reports things like 'The trial was held in special conditions, with frequent breaks and counsel removing their gowns and wigs, due to the defendants’ ages.' Or not naming them because of their age. If they are guilty then age shouldn't come into it and should be named, shamed and made an example.
If you can knife a kid or anyone at any age, then I can't see what social media or any restrictions to it will make the slightest bit of difference. Social background and the lack of discipline these days when it comes to children has more of an effect than social media.
And I haven't got a clue to why stating someone with neuro whatever has got to do it this or anything.