Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Paedophiles and trolls are different things and there are already laws against this and statuary rape charges.

is there something under this new proposed law which is going to make it illegal for adults to speak to kids online? That would be yet another OTT law and nightmare for discussion board operators and potentially exclude kids from boards which could give them education because sites would make them 16 or 18+.....which kids would sign up to anyway and lie about their age

They are, the legislation aims to curb many different kinds of inappropriate internet activity.

I don't think that banning adults from speaking to children would be workable as many adults legitimately speak to child members of their family.

AIUI, it will be more about forcing websites to quickly pass on the details that they hold about people.

At the moment, some drag their feet or even refuse outright until they are ordered to by the judiciary.

I was speaking to a policeman this morning and he said that some often cite free speech as a reason and we both agreed that this was an excuse. They're more interested in traffic to increase revenue than they are from protecting individuals from trolls, paedophiles etc.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

They are, the legislation aims to curb many different kinds of inappropriate internet activity.

I don't think that banning adults from speaking to children would be workable as many adults legitimately speak to child members of their family.

AIUI, it will be more about forcing websites to quickly pass on the details that they hold about people.

At the moment, some drag their feet or even refuse outright until they are ordered to by the judiciary.

I was speaking to a policeman this morning and he said that some often cite free speech as a reason and we both agreed that this was an excuse. They're more interested in traffic to increase revenue than they are from protecting individuals from trolls, paedophiles etc.

I'm more interested in how you spoke to a policeman at 5am in the morning.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by peanut

I'm more interested in how you spoke to a policeman at 5am in the morning.

The police don't close for the night!!!

But I actually meant Monday morning, it was still Monday to me as I hadn't yet gone to bed!

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The police don't close for the night!!!

But I actually meant Monday morning, it was still Monday to me as I hadn't yet gone to bed!

My local police station closes at 5pm, and they lock the doors 24-7 as there is no one on reception.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

My local police station closes at 5pm, and they lock the doors 24-7 as there is no one on reception.

Same here, they have just closed the last walk in center. You have to do everything via the phone or internet. Only time i see a copper is if they have a speed camera in there hands on a road.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

My local police station closes at 5pm, and they lock the doors 24-7 as there is no one on reception.

You have a police station? Our village station closed in the 80s,the local town station closed in the 90s and moved into the Town Hall.Now we have to go to the next town over.

[Qtx]

So many police stations closed down and moved to town halls. My local station is in a town hall that closes at the same time as the rest of the building too. It does have a phone outside which I assume you can use to call night staff but I doubt its very helpful and probably just to tell you to call back in the morning or dial 999 or whatever.

The problem with 'think of the children' is it is used as a way to start the first step towards the real stuff they want to do. GCHQ are trying to use that angle to get around encryption at the moment by suggesting chat programs pre-scan chats on the client end because of child predators, when everyone knows they just want to spy on everything everyone does and encryption gets in the way of that.

We had mission creep with website blocking which was only ever going to be used to block bad kiddy sites but is now used to block sites by very rich media and watch companies etc.

That Alex Jones guy from infowars spouted a lot of crap and got kicked off the net without any real due legal action. Yet a few things he was saying was true and he mentioned about sex trafficking happening on an island by rich people before Epstein was caught. So a site giving information about that was censored despite it warning people of it.

People were DDoSing and hacking some arabic sites where terrorists were believed to be chatting or grooming people but the security services wanted the sites up and running so they could see what was being said and make links between things. Better for the site to be up and uncensored in this case.

Censorship is always a bad trail to go down imo and laws forcing it are never going to fully do what people bringing them intend them to do either.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

my question is, if this was the case, would you actually say this to the person.

If someone asks me if I dislike them, and why, then I'll tell them.

I dont know anyone who randomly walks up to someone they dislike and says "Hey, I dont like you, because ......<whatever>"

(But again, I see no reason they cannot do so, if they really want to, you cannot try and force anyone to like anyone else).

They're more interested in traffic to increase revenue than they are from protecting individuals from trolls, paedophiles etc

Again seem to confuse a handful of large social media sites with the vast majority of sites.
Facebook, Twitter etc are a small fraction of the total sites, which this proposed law wants to cover.
As I said before, its not a hammer to crack a nut, its a stonking big pile driver to crack a very small nut.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Maggy

You have a police station? Our village station closed in the 80s,the local town station closed in the 90s and moved into the Town Hall.Now we have to go to the next town over.

I thought this was going to be the start of a Four Yorkshiremen skit .. "luxury!"

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Paul

If someone asks me if I dislike them, and why, then I'll tell them.

I dont know anyone who randomly walks up to someone they dislike and says "Hey, I dont like you, because ......<whatever>"

Forums can be more akin to people expressing their views to some people with other people listening or overhearing what has been said. If they don't like what was said they can confront it/debate it with the person or ignore it, much like they could on the street.

Censoring posts means no one else can hear what was said. It was still said and some still heard it probably.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Qtx

So many police stations closed down and moved to town halls. My local station is in a town hall that closes at the same time as the rest of the building too. It does have a phone outside which I assume you can use to call night staff but I doubt its very helpful and probably just to tell you to call back in the morning or dial 999 or whatever.

The problem with 'think of the children' is it is used as a way to start the first step towards the real stuff they want to do. GCHQ are trying to use that angle to get around encryption at the moment by suggesting chat programs pre-scan chats on the client end because of child predators, when everyone knows they just want to spy on everything everyone does and encryption gets in the way of that.

We had mission creep with website blocking which was only ever going to be used to block bad kiddy sites but is now used to block sites by very rich media and watch companies etc.

That Alex Jones guy from infowars spouted a lot of crap and got kicked off the net without any real due legal action. Yet a few things he was saying was true and he mentioned about sex trafficking happening on an island by rich people before Epstein was caught. So a site giving information about that was censored despite it warning people of it.

People were DDoSing and hacking some arabic sites where terrorists were believed to be chatting or grooming people but the security services wanted the sites up and running so they could see what was being said and make links between things. Better for the site to be up and uncensored in this case.

Censorship is always a bad trail to go down imo and laws forcing it are never going to fully do what people bringing them intend them to do either.

I have some sympathy with what you say, so it's a shame that the website owners didn't co-operate with the voluntary code of conduct that was tried first.

---------- Post added at 05:03 ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

If someone asks me if I dislike them, and why, then I'll tell them.

I dont know anyone who randomly walks up to someone they dislike and says "Hey, I dont like you, because ......<whatever>"

(But again, I see no reason they cannot do so, if they really want to, you cannot try and force anyone to like anyone else).


Again seem to confuse a handful of large social media sites with the vast majority of sites.
Facebook, Twitter etc are a small fraction of the total sites, which this proposed law wants to cover.
As I said before, its not a hammer to crack a nut, its a stonking big pile driver to crack a very small nut.

Well, our thoughts are private to others (on this Earth anyway) so, unless this view is expressed, nobody else would know.

Anyone coming out and telling somebody that they didn't like them because they were black, disabled, gay etc would be committing an offence.

Some just like to harass/upset/annoy people in protected groups and think that if they stay clear of mentioning certain subjects or using certain terminology that they will get away with it.

The police/courts aren't daft and they look at everything holistically, particularly if the person has requested no further contact from them. This forms part of my current complaint to the police about an individual on Facebook.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I have some sympathy with what you say, so it's a shame that the website owners didn't co-operate with the voluntary code of conduct that was tried first.

---------- Post added at 05:03 ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 ----------



Well, our thoughts are private to others (on this Earth anyway) so, unless this view is expressed, nobody else would know.

Anyone coming out and telling somebody that they didn't like them because they were black, disabled, gay etc would be committing an offence.

Some just like to harass/upset/annoy people in protected groups and think that if they stay clear of mentioning certain subjects or using certain terminology that they will get away with it.

The police/courts aren't daft and they look at everything holistically, particularly if the person has requested no further contact from them. This forms part of my current complaint to the police about an individual on Facebook.

What happens when you harass/upset/annoy people in non protected groups?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Mythica

What happens when you harass/upset/annoy people in non protected groups?

No idea as that doesn't apply to my current situation, so my solicitor didn't/wouldn't mention anything about that.

Anyone having any trouble is advised to hire the services of a qualied solicitor rather than asking questions about legal matters on a forum.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No idea as that doesn't apply to my current situation, so my solicitor didn't/wouldn't mention anything about that.

Anyone having any trouble is advised to hire the services of a qualied solicitor rather than asking questions about legal matters on a forum.

It's still a direct question to you. You seem very vocal on the matter of harassment and the like.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No idea as that doesn't apply to my current situation, so my solicitor didn't/wouldn't mention anything about that.

Anyone having any trouble is advised to hire the services of a qualied solicitor rather than asking questions about legal matters on a forum.

You're such an <removed> person. Always on the look out for something to complain about or take legal action against. You need to take a good long hard look at yourself because you're never going to be happy or be accepted the way you are.