Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

Ummm, if you are not clear on what it is, how can you agree its a problem ?

I think we all know what it is, but it’s the extent of that definition that bothers me. Some people seem to think that posts disagreeing with what they’ve said constitutes trolling.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

Exactly. No amount of “new initiatives” by the government will change the prejudice in some people. At best you can try to run it underground but that doesn’t change the problem.

Everybody carries with them their own prejudice and bias. Everybody make assumptions about everybody at first based on how they look, how they sound, what they say, what their name is etc.

Then, if you actually get to talk to people you may, or may not, re-assess your initial thoughts on the person(s)

It's human.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Everybody carries with them their own prejudice and bias. Everybody make assumptions about everybody at first based on how they look, how they sound, what they say, what their name is etc.

Then, if you actually get to talk to people you may, or may not, re-assess your initial thoughts on the person(s)

It's human.

You mean like people having big issues with, for example, foreign call centre staff and a connected misconception that anybody not British (white??) is by default a lying two faced criminal?

And when you do actually have to talk to a foreign call centre you've already made your mind up that you're going to have problems so resulting in you further reinforcing your existing prejudices.

Yeah, I suppose you could say it's only human

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

You mean like people having big issues with, for example, foreign call centre staff and a connected misconception that anybody not British (white??) is by default a lying two faced criminal?

Well, be careful with those spring loaded boots, it's quite a leap from what I was suggesting.

[Carth]

I think we've all met someone at some time that we - for whatever reason - take an instant dislike to.

I'm pretty sure it's not because of the persons colour, race, disability, religion or political stance, but something deeper and instinctive that says 'watch this one'

Conversely we've also met those we feel an instant affinity to, again just some instinctive brain function harking back to when we lived in caves

In both cases that 'first impression' can turn out to be wrong, but it still happens . . . as Pierre says, it's human nature.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Carth

I think we've all met someone at some time that we - for whatever reason - take an instant dislike to.

Sometimes i don't even have to physically meet them. I can work it out over a short period of time via written words.

[GrimUpNorth]

I wonder if this item on the BBC suggests the new act would cover frivolous legal threats? Could they be classed as "genuinely threatening" or "knowingly false" messages?

[RichardCoulter]

Good to see the courts taking a harsher line against online harassment:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.exa...y-22993824.amp

---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Sometimes i don't even have to physically meet them. I can work it out over a short period of time via written words.

The trouble with this is that misunderstandings can often occur when communicating in the written word.

Things such as tone, facial expressions etc aren't present and some people aren't able to express themselves effectively due to various disabilities.

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

I think we've all met someone at some time that we - for whatever reason - take an instant dislike to.

I'm pretty sure it's not because of the persons colour, race, disability, religion or political stance, but something deeper and instinctive that says 'watch this one'

Conversely we've also met those we feel an instant affinity to, again just some instinctive brain function harking back to when we lived in caves

In both cases that 'first impression' can turn out to be wrong, but it still happens . . . as Pierre says, it's human nature.

Yes, I think that this is true. It is irrational though, so I think that we should try to override these thoughts.

Such thoughts are said to be because we try to work people out based on past experiences (good of bad) from people that they remind us off either physically, socially, intellectually etc.

I think that this arises from a primitive form of self protection eg if we were stung by a certain plant, we would be wary of going near to a plant that reminded us of the one that stung us in the past, which may be perfectly innocuous.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Yes, I think that this is true. It is irrational though, so I think that we should try to override these thoughts.

Such thoughts are said to be because we try to work people out based on past experiences (good of bad) from people that they remind us off either physically, socially, intellectually etc.

I think that this arises from a primitive form of self protection eg if we were stung by a certain plant, we would be wary of going near to a plant that reminded us of the one that stung us in the past, which may be perfectly innocuous.

Do you have a link to anything backing up that statement? I'd be interested to read the science behind it.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Maggy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53nRcfosYR0

Rosie Jones who takes the pee constantly about her condition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abBi...n%27sGotTalent

Lost Voice Guy who has turned his disability to good ends.

Just two who have turned their disability into a positive.They make their points and promote themselves and others with disabilities. They don't look around to make themselves a special case.They take on the world on their own terms.They are wonderful advocates for equality for the disabled.There are very many more if you care to look around.Indeed one of the most popular TV shows is presented by people with disability and uses humour to make some pretty good points about what it is to be disabled and yet not let it hold them back.

Maybe they should be referenced more by Richard as an example of how to show positivity instead of constant negativity.

This wasn't created as a 'disability thread' as someone assumed earlier.

You're quite right in that there are lots of positive examples of how people cope with disability, but this thread was created with the intention of discussing how the authorities intend to deal with online trolling/bullying/harassment etc towards people of any kind, much if which is based on race, mental or physical disability, gender, sexuality etc.

That's not to say that every incident involves a person with a protected characteristic and, therefore, classed as a hatd crime. Sometimes it can be borne out of jealousy of a celebrity, or just plain spite, where zn individual is targeted for no particular reason at all.

---------- Post added at 11:00 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Do you have a link to anything backing up that statement? I'd be interested to read the science behind it.

It's not something that I've read recently, but a search should give you affirmation. It stands to reason that a child or an animal that touches fire and feels pain will remember the incident and try not to repeat it on the interests of self preservation.

In fact, afyer speaking to my specialist about my current head pain, pain doesn't actually truly exist, it's the response of the brain when it receives a message that something is wrong or that the body is becoming damaged in some way. I guess the idea is to encourage us to take care of ourselves or stop whatever is giving rise to the pain.

Doesn't seem fair when it's something that an individual can't help or stop, but there we are.

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 ----------

It's been reported by BBC TV news that it's felt that the online harms Bill doesn't go far enough in scope or content.

I've found this:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-8743/

[Carth]

I think it's a great idea.

We really need to push more of our limited police and court resources into investigating and punishing these crimes.

I know that people who have been burgled, had their car stolen, have been robbed and/or beaten up in the street or are in an area plagued by feral youths and drug addicts won't agree, but what exactly do you expect for the money?

[RichardCoulter]

The answer is that both are important and should be dealt with as they ruin peopes lives or can even end up with people losing their lives.

Today's news that covers the extended issues, which includes drugs & arms dealing and posts that encourage suicide, is now online and is the first report:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00149dn

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's been reported by BBC TV news that it's felt that the online harms Bill doesn't go far enough in scope or content.

Felt by who ?

[Russ]

By those with the right narrative obviously!!

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

Felt by who ?

Those considering it inside Parliament.