Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Speeding motorists kill.

Non speeding motorists kill, whats your point exactly ?

Originally Posted by Paul M

Non speeding motorists kill, whats your point exactly ?

Speeding and dangerous driving is more likely to kill and it is a more serious criminal offence than trolling I guess.

[RichardCoulter]

I think that the answer is to properly fund the police so that all crimes can be investigated, though I suspect that the police have gone for the low hanging fruit for years to get their stats up.

The police i've spoken to say that they hate interactive social media sites because they take up far too much of their time, maybe this is why Ofcom are bidding to implement the german reforms in the UK to nip abuse, grooming, harrassment etc in the bud before it becomes a police matter??

If more properly trained moderators need to be employed to keep an eye on the users of these sites and promptly deal with any innapropriate posts, then so be it. I'm sure the likes of Facebook can afford it.

[RichardCoulter]

Hostility to the elderly now under review and may be classed as a hate crime:

https://www.homecare.co.uk/news/arti...-as-hate-crime

This could mean the addition of older people being added as a 'protected characteristic'.

It was on the news that crimes against older people have increased by 260% over the past few years. It's a real shame that even the elderly aren't immune to attack by hateful people.
Don't parents bring their children up to show respect for their elders anymore?

[Julian]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Hostility to the elderly now under review and may be classed as a hate crime:

https://www.homecare.co.uk/news/arti...-as-hate-crime

This could mean the addition of older people being added as a 'protected characteristic'.

It was on the news that crimes against older people have increased by 260% over the past few years. It's a real shame that even the elderly aren't immune to attack by hateful people.
Don't parents bring their children up to show respect for their elders anymore?

Respect has to be earned it is not a given.

[techguyone]

The way we're going we might as well add the moniker 'hate' to any crime, we're not far off getting there, which kinda diminishes it, this society it's laughable at how it ties itself up in knots doing stuff.

(and before anyone chimps up i'm not laughing at hate crime...)

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by techguyone

The way we're going we might as well add the moniker 'hate' to any crime, we're not far off getting there, which kinda diminishes it, this society it's laughable at how it ties itself up in knots doing stuff.

(and before anyone chimps up i'm not laughing at hate crime...)

Well, there can't be many groups of people you could think of that are not covered by equality or hate legislation, so you can't help wondering why on Earth such rules should be applied to one section of the population and not the other. It defies logic and should be resolved.

Everyone should be prorected against discriminatory behaviour, hate crime, and have the right to be treated fairly and equally. The only legislation required identifying a particular group is for people with disabilities who require reasonable adjustments. Separate legislation for hate crime is unnecessary because the definition of that is misunderstood and can be interpreted in different ways. All threats, physical and emotional violence should be treated the same and punished accordingly. That's what people understand.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Julian

Respect has to be earned it is not a given.

There's a difference between treating someone with respect and respecting them as an individual. Your comment applies to the latter, but not the former IMO.

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, there can't be many groups of people you could think of that are not covered by equality or hate legislation, so you can't help wondering why on Earth such rules should be applied to one section of the population and not the other. It defies logic and should be resolved.

Everyone should be prorected against discriminatory behaviour, hate crime, and have the right to be treated fairly and equally. The only legislation required identifying a particular group is for people with disabilities who require reasonable adjustments. Separate legislation for hate crime is unnecessary because the definition of that is misunderstood and can be interpreted in different ways. All threats, physical and emotional violence should be treated the same and punished accordingly. That's what people understand.

The reasoning behind it is because certain minority and disadvantaged groups are more likely to be discriminated against, targeted or treated less favourably because of the protected group that they belonged to. As society wishes to stamp this out, this is deemed to be worse than a random attack and the punishments are more severe.

I agree that everyone should be protected against unacceptable behaviour, but an elderly or disabled person for example, is likely to suffer more severely than a young able bodied person and less likely to be able to defend themselves.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There's a difference between treating someone with respect and respecting them as an individual. Your comment applies to the latter, but not the former IMO.

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------



The reasoning behind it is because certain minority and disadvantaged groups are more likely to be discriminated against, targeted or treated less favourably because of the protected group that they belonged to. As society wishes to stamp this out, this is deemed to be worse than a random attack and the punishments are more severe.

I agree that everyone should be protected against unacceptable behaviour, but an elderly or disabled person for example, is likely to suffer more severely than a young able bodied person and less likely to be able to defend themselves.

What is the difference - people earn respect, it shouldn't just be given (that's different from being polite to everyone, which I think you should, unless they have given reason for not to be polite).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The reasoning behind it is because certain minority and disadvantaged groups are more likely to be discriminated against, targeted or treated less favourably because of the protected group that they belonged to. As society wishes to stamp this out, this is deemed to be worse than a random attack and the punishments are more severe.

I agree that everyone should be protected against unacceptable behaviour, but an elderly or disabled person for example, is likely to suffer more severely than a young able bodied person and less likely to be able to defend themselves.

I understand your point, but it has gone too far. What about ugly people, people with spots, people with ginger hair? Where will it end? We have tied ourselves in knots over this and as a country, we are starting to look ridiculous.

Time for a re-think, I say.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

What is the difference - people earn respect, it shouldn't just be given (that's different from being polite to everyone, which I think you should, unless they have given reason for not to be polite).

Well, there are people that I have respect for and people that I show respect to (regardless of whether I respect them or not).

I aren't a Catholic, but attended a Catholic church service and was introduced to the priest. It was the first time that i'd met him, so it would be unreasonable for me to respect him as an individual. However, I treated him, his position and the good work that he does with the utmost of respect.

I don't think that there are many situations where impoliteness is ever valid.

[RichardCoulter]

Interesting that the Public Order Act 1986 (which prohibits actions intended to cause harrassment, alarm or distress through the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or signs) has been used to charge the individuals responsible for the vile video mocking the Grenfall residents. I've only ever come across this being used for verbal or written (including electronic) words, that's not to say it's never been used for offensive videos before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46106224

I had assumed that they would have used the Communications Act, which carries a prison sentence of up to six months.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Interesting that the Public Order Act 1986 (which prohibits actions intended to cause harrassment, alarm or distress through the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or signs) has been used to charge the individuals responsible for the vile video mocking the Grenfall residents. I've only ever come across this being used for verbal or written (including electronic) words, that's not to say it's never been used for offensive videos before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46106224

I had assumed that they would have used the Communications Act, which carries a prison sentence of up to six months.

It remains to be seen whether this holds up in court. They will have to prove intent. The accused would probably say they were just having a laugh.

Clearly, this was a dispicable act, but I doubt that it was criminal.

[RichardCoulter]

I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's just been on the news that those responsible have given themselves up without having to be traced, which should go in their favour and that a number of houses have been searched and items removed.

You'd think that if this sort of behaviour appeals to them that they would have had the sense not to post it on the internet!

Whatever happens with the police, I think that they will probably receive short thrift from their local community.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's just been on the news that those responsible have given themselves up without having to be traced, which should go in their favour and that a number of houses have been searched and items removed.

You'd think that if this sort of behaviour appeals to them that they would have had the sense not to post it on the internet!

Whatever happens with the police, I think that they will probably receive short thrift from their local community.

They may well have put it on the internet to 'give people a laugh' and in the hope that it would go viral. It is quite possible that they did not anticipate the actual reaction they received.

Very nieve.