UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: G-Unit on March 21, 2015, 01:56:50 PM
-
A subject which is very much in the news, but what exactly is it, and when will it lead to civil or criminal proceedings?
I found this;
Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/troll
Will that get you sued for libel or charged by the police though?
You can be sued for libel if you harm someone's reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of society.
Soon to be changed to substantial harm.
You can be prosecuted if your post is in contempt of court (naming a rape victim, breaking a super injunction). Grossly offensive or menacing communications may lead to prosecution also. (Examples are joking about dead children or threatening to blow up an airport)
Posts which are in bad taste, controversial, unpopular or likely to cause offense are not necessarily criminal offenses.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257
-
A subject which is very much in the news, but what exactly is it, and when will it lead to civil or criminal proceedings?
I found this;
Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/troll
Will that get you sued for libel or charged by the police though?
You can be sued for libel if you harm someone's reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of society.
Soon to be changed to substantial harm.
You can be prosecuted if your post is in contempt of court (naming a rape victim, breaking a super injunction). Grossly offensive or menacing communications may lead to prosecution also. (Examples are joking about dead children or threatening to blow up an airport)
Posts which are in bad taste, controversial, unpopular or likely to cause offense are not necessarily criminal offenses.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257
If you make an online comment which is racist or homophobic and likely to incite hatred against a racial group or the LBGT community you will likely be charged with a crime. Make a comment likely to incite hatred against an individual who is neither gay nor from an ethnic minority and it seems the law doesn't give a hoot. Strange isn't? it?
-
If you make an online comment which is racist or homophobic and likely to incite hatred against a racial group or the LBGT community you will likely be charged with a crime. Make a comment likely to incite hatred against an individual who is neither gay nor from an ethnic minority and it seems the law doesn't give a hoot. Strange isn't? it?
They don't give a hoot about journalists either. It's a pity they don't set a better example. Was Carole Malone inciting hatred when writing about Brenda Leyland in the Mirror?
One of these trolls, Brenda Leyland, is a church-going 60-something divorcee who lives in a pretty village in the Home Counties. She looks like a perfectly respectable woman. But of course she isn’t.
She’s a cowardly bully who hides behind her smart front door and spews her bile in secret because she doesn’t have the guts to do it in public.
This piece of work was sending up to 50 texts a day to the McCanns. But when Sky News cameras approached her she wasn’t quite so brave.
She looked like a frightened rabbit (typical). But as she was running away (also typical) she said she thought she was entitled to do what she’d done.
Really? She thinks she’s entitled to threaten, hound and bully the innocent? Is that because her own life is so lonely, so miserable, so poisoned that she wants others to suffer the same. Or is she just a twisted, fecked up bitch who gets her kicks from hurting people.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-internet-trolls-devoid-4379575#ixzz3FsF2Dh8t
-
They don't give a hoot about journalists either. It's a pity they don't set a better example. Was Carole Malone inciting hatred when writing about Brenda Leyland in the Mirror?
One of these trolls, Brenda Leyland, is a church-going 60-something divorcee who lives in a pretty village in the Home Counties. She looks like a perfectly respectable woman. But of course she isn’t.
She’s a cowardly bully who hides behind her smart front door and spews her bile in secret because she doesn’t have the guts to do it in public.
This piece of work was sending up to 50 texts a day to the McCanns. But when Sky News cameras approached her she wasn’t quite so brave.
She looked like a frightened rabbit (typical). But as she was running away (also typical) she said she thought she was entitled to do what she’d done.
Really? She thinks she’s entitled to threaten, hound and bully the innocent? Is that because her own life is so lonely, so miserable, so poisoned that she wants others to suffer the same. Or is she just a twisted, fecked up bitch who gets her kicks from hurting people.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-internet-trolls-devoid-4379575#ixzz3FsF2Dh8t
Are you claiming that Carole Malone is a troll?
-
A subject which is very much in the news, but what exactly is it, and when will it lead to civil or criminal proceedings?
I found this;
Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/troll
Will that get you sued for libel or charged by the police though?
You can be sued for libel if you harm someone's reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of society.
Soon to be changed to substantial harm.
You can be prosecuted if your post is in contempt of court (naming a rape victim, breaking a super injunction). Grossly offensive or menacing communications may lead to prosecution also. (Examples are joking about dead children or threatening to blow up an airport)
Posts which are in bad taste, controversial, unpopular or likely to cause offense are not necessarily criminal offenses.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257
So according to the dictionary the papers were correct to call Brenda a troll
-
They don't give a hoot about journalists either. It's a pity they don't set a better example. Was Carole Malone inciting hatred when writing about Brenda Leyland in the Mirror?
One of these trolls, Brenda Leyland, is a church-going 60-something divorcee who lives in a pretty village in the Home Counties. She looks like a perfectly respectable woman. But of course she isn’t.
She’s a cowardly bully who hides behind her smart front door and spews her bile in secret because she doesn’t have the guts to do it in public.
This piece of work was sending up to 50 texts a day to the McCanns. But when Sky News cameras approached her she wasn’t quite so brave.
She looked like a frightened rabbit (typical). But as she was running away (also typical) she said she thought she was entitled to do what she’d done.
Really? She thinks she’s entitled to threaten, hound and bully the innocent? Is that because her own life is so lonely, so miserable, so poisoned that she wants others to suffer the same. Or is she just a twisted, fecked up bitch who gets her kicks from hurting people.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-internet-trolls-devoid-4379575#ixzz3FsF2Dh8t
Some would say she is quite rightly condemning poisonous displays of hatred not inciting it. If she was congratulating BL on a job well done that would be incitement IMO. But she was doing the opposite.
-
Some would say she is quite rightly condemning poisonous displays of hatred not inciting it. If she was congratulating BL on a job well done that would be incitement IMO. But she was doing the opposite.
Ah, so in the mind of the faithful, hatred is a one way street.
-
Ah, so in the mind of the faithful, hatred is a one way street.
You have it in a nutshell.
They only view matters in 1-dimension.
-
So according to the dictionary the papers were correct to call Brenda a troll
Quite possibly, but was she breaking any laws?
-
Ah, so in the mind of the faithful, hatred is a one way street.
I didn't say that or anything like it. The poster I answered referred to an article by Carole Malone and asked whether it was an incitement to hatred. I was answering that question.
-
Quite possibly, but was she breaking any laws?
That is a grey area........were the mccanns breaking any laws with their child care
-
Ah, so in the mind of the faithful, hatred is a one way street.
More pearls of wisdom from the faithless denigrating the faithful could be considered impolite if not trolling.
-
Quite possibly, but was she breaking any laws?
What did the police say at the inquest...if they said we had no intention of charging her with any criminal charge...that doesn't mean she hadn't broken any laws...but could be interpreted by some as such
-
Are you claiming that Carole Malone is a troll?
I don't know if her article appeared online, it's been deleted. Does it fit the definition? I don't know, maybe some people would relish being described that way.
Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
-
I didn't say that or anything like it. The poster I answered referred to an article by Carole Malone and asked whether it was an incitement to hatred. I was answering that question.
She was displaying hatred.
-
She was displaying hatred.
It's highly subjective
-
She was displaying hatred.
IMO BL certainly was in some of her tweets that I have seen.
Not sure how you work out that Carole Malone was. If I say I hate cruelty to animals and say what I think about people who are cruel to animals - is that me being a hateful cruel person? Not in my neck of the woods it's not.
-
Some would say she is quite rightly condemning poisonous displays of hatred not inciting it. If she was congratulating BL on a job well done that would be incitement IMO. But she was doing the opposite.
I think you have identified the problem very well there. 'Some people' would agree with what Carole Malone wrote. 'Other people' would say she was making a personal attack on BL with the intention of hurting her. It's a subjective opinion either way.
-
There is always someone who starts these things.
-
That is a grey area........were the mccanns breaking any laws with their child care
As we know they weren't. Another grey area when it comes to 'public opinion' though. Some have excused or forgiven them others were horrified.
-
As we know they weren't. Another grey area when it comes to 'public opinion' though. Some have excused or forgiven them others were horrified.
Since they broke no laws it was no one's business but their own.
-
She was displaying hatred.
She most certainly was, unless calling someone a 'twisted, fecked up bitch' isn't hateful of course.
Although, I do think Carole Malone is a demented old hag,.... but that doesn't mean that I hate her.
But I do hate her, as it happens.
-
IMO BL certainly was in some of her tweets that I have seen.
Not sure how you work out that Carole Malone was. If I say I hate cruelty to animals and say what I think about people who are cruel to animals - is that me being a hateful cruel person? Not in my neck of the woods it's not.
Should you say whatever you like about them though? If I was saying what I thought about people who are cruel to animals I would say I deplore their actions and I cannot imagine what sort of person would do that. I wouldn't necessarily focus on their life style and character and call them names. That demeans me.
-
As we know they weren't. Another grey area when it comes to 'public opinion' though. Some have excused or forgiven them others were horrified.
what's the point in not forgiving
-
I think you have identified the problem very well there. 'Some people' would agree with what Carole Malone wrote. 'Other people' would say she was making a personal attack on BL with the intention of hurting her. It's a subjective opinion either way.
I think people who are not interested in the case and are not following it would mainly agree with Carole Malone. As would most 'supporters' of the McCanns IMO. People who spend their time on Twitter shrieking abuse at the McCanns day in and day out will obviously see it differently as they are doing exactly the same themselves as BL was.
Although why anyone would actually want to spend so much time just being abusive to other people - I have no idea. But for some reason they appear to thoroughly enjoy it!! Personally - I just don't get that.
-
Should you say whatever you like about them though? If I was saying what I thought about people who are cruel to animals I would say I deplore their actions and I cannot imagine what sort of person would do that. I wouldn't necessarily focus on their life style and character and call them names. That demeans me.
But surely the same can be said about BL. She was an intelligent articulate woman, and could have expressed her doubts and concerns about the McCanns without resorting to such abuse and spite.
It's not difficult to remain relatively courteous when exchanging differing views. We do it every day in real life.
-
Since they broke no laws it was no one's business but their own.
Quite possibly. Some people, however, think that different child care arrangements would have meant a different outcome on 3rd May. There has been discussion on here about abductors entering houses and taking children when the parents were in the house. In the case of the alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann, however, it is claimed by the parents that it happened when they were absent. Some people have suggested that it wouldn't have happened if they had been present or if they had paid for a baby sitter or used the night creche. Do they have the right to express their opinions? That's a matter of opinion. I wonder what people would do if they saw a neighbour going out dining and drinking every night for six nights and leaving their small children alone? Some people would report them, others would do nothing, others would offer to baby sit, depending on their opinions.
-
I think people who are not interested in the case and are not following it would mainly agree with Carole Malone. As would most 'supporters' of the McCanns IMO. People who spend their time on Twitter shrieking abuse at the McCanns day in and day out will obviously see it differently as they are doing exactly the same themselves as BL was.
Although why anyone would actually want to spend so much time just being abusive to other people - I have no idea. But for some reason they appear to thoroughly enjoy it!! Personally - I just don't get that.
There are McCann 'supporters' who spend their time on Twitter shrieking abuse at those who don't support the McCanns, it's a two way street.
-
There are McCann 'supporters' who spend their time on Twitter shrieking abuse at those who don't support the McCanns, it's a two way street.
it isn't a two way street...people on this forum take the p out of Davel...Davel doesn't exist...it doesn't matter....
The abuse towards the McCanns is real
-
Since they broke no laws it was no one's business but their own.
Bit like BL then.
-
I wonder if any posters can recognise themselves in this short paragraph. Sometimes we all are guilty of straying off topic, but there are one or two who seem unwilling to post on topic whatever the thread, if that is not the case why does every thread whatever the title almost inevitably end up as an episode of McCann bashing?
**snip
Spend even a little time reading comments posted online and you are likely to come across the work of a Troll.
Typically hiding behind an anonymous online account, Trolls make provocative or offensive comments to incite anger and upset.
Put-downs, name-calling, insults and emotional rants are just some of the ways Trolls operate.
They divert discussions down non-productive or off-topic paths, they bully and they harass people who dare to express an opinion, they take pleasure in posting inaccurate "facts".
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/career-agenda/lessons-learned/trolls-the-damage-they-do-and-what-you-can-do-about-it#.VQ3uG_msU7s
-
I wonder if any posters can recognise themselves in this short paragraph. Sometimes we all are guilty of straying off topic, but there are one or two who seem unwilling to post on topic whatever the thread, if that is not the case why does every thread whatever the title almost inevitably end up as am episode of McCann bashing?
**snip
Spend even a little time reading comments posted online and you are likely to come across the work of a Troll.
Typically hiding behind an anonymous online account, Trolls make provocative or offensive comments to incite anger and upset.
Put-downs, name-calling, insults and emotional rants are just some of the ways Trolls operate.
They divert discussions down non-productive or off-topic paths, they bully and they harass people who dare to express an opinion, they take pleasure in posting inaccurate "facts".
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/career-agenda/lessons-learned/trolls-the-damage-they-do-and-what-you-can-do-about-it#.VQ3uG_msU7s
If the above is accurate then each and every one of us on this forum, and indeed on every forum, could be legitimately called 'troll''.
-
I wonder if any posters can recognise themselves in this short paragraph. Sometimes we all are guilty of straying off topic, but there are one or two who seem unwilling to post on topic whatever the thread, if that is not the case why does every thread whatever the title almost inevitably end up as am episode of McCann bashing?
**snip
Spend even a little time reading comments posted online and you are likely to come across the work of a Troll.
Typically hiding behind an anonymous online account, Trolls make provocative or offensive comments to incite anger and upset.
Put-downs, name-calling, insults and emotional rants are just some of the ways Trolls operate.
They divert discussions down non-productive or off-topic paths, they bully and they harass people who dare to express an opinion, they take pleasure in posting inaccurate "facts".
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/career-agenda/lessons-learned/trolls-the-damage-they-do-and-what-you-can-do-about-it#.VQ3uG_msU7s
Yep pretty much an average day at this office on both sides of the fence.
-
If you make an online comment which is racist or homophobic and likely to incite hatred against a racial group or the LBGT community you will likely be charged with a crime. Make a comment likely to incite hatred against an individual who is neither gay nor from an ethnic minority and it seems the law doesn't give a hoot. Strange isn't? it?
Minorities will tell you people very rarely face consequences for being racist on social media (maybe in 1 in a million of instances).
There have certainly been more prosecutions that had nothing to do with homophobia or racism.
-
If the above is accurate then each and every one of us on this forum, and indeed on every forum, could be legitimately called 'troll''.
'Trolling' is one thing, but making serious threats to harm or kill is something altogether quite different, as I'm sure all of us on here can agree..... and if you don't then I'm going to hurt you.
-
i think some people are way too thin skinned the simple thing is if you dont like what you read dont read it having a diffrent opinion isnt being a troll
-
Minorities will tell you people very rarely face consequences for being racist on social media (maybe in 1 in a million of instances).
There have certainly been more prosecutions that had nothing to do with homophobia or racism.
have you the data on prosecutions for online abuse?
-
'Trolling' is one thing, but making serious threats to harm or kill is something altogether quite different, as I'm sure all of us on here can agree..... and if you don't then I'm going to hurt you.
WS I was reluctant to cite you as a prime example ... thank you for saving me the embarrassment of 'outing' another forum member.
-
i think some people are way too thin skinned the simple thing is if you dont like what you read dont read it having a diffrent opinion isnt being a troll
You're absolutely right Carly...al these rules about posting...if I want to call Stephen a stupid tw*t..what's wrong with that...
-
have you the data on prosecutions for online abuse?
Not at my fingertips, but I've read articles including figures (I'll have a look for them).
-
Not at my fingertips, but I've read articles including figures (I'll have a look for them).
I think posters are free to post abuse online and needn't worry about the threat of criminal charges...look at Brenda
-
Not at my fingertips, but I've read articles including figures (I'll have a look for them).
I'm sure it must be easier to get the police to take action over racist or homophobic bullying than bullying of individuals that does not have a racist or homophobic slant, but I await your data with interest.
-
I think posters are free to post abuse online and needn't worry about the threat of criminal charges...look at Brenda
im sure that angers you lots but whats to do?
-
I think posters are free to post abuse online and needn't worry about the threat of criminal charges...look at Brenda
You're doing a bit of trolling yourself there mate, but you're not going to wind me up 8(0(*
Did anyone check if Grayling got his 2 yr maximum sentence into the Criminal Justice and Courts Act?
-
From what I have read on some internet sites the reported ill effects on those being the target of on-line bullying is exactly the effect they hope and strive to achieve.
If they desire to affect the mental health and well being of those who are the target in this way, it begs question as to the state their own mental health and well being in allowing their participation in such aberrant behaviour.
A single troll is bad and bad enough if you are its plaything of choice ... organised gangs are in my opinion something entirely different and portray distinct deviant behaviour.
**snip
Depression and anxiety are common mental health challenges among people who have been cyber bullied. Loss of self-esteem and confidence are also commonly reported.
**snip
People need to understand not to jump on the on-line bully bandwagon by joining in a conversation to have fun at someone else's expense.
Irrespective of why someone chooses to be a Troll, the destructive consequences of their behaviour make it inexcusable.
http://www.womensagenda.com.au/career-agenda/lessons-learned/trolls-the-damage-they-do-and-what-you-can-do-about-it#.VQ3uG_msU7s
-
WS I was reluctant to cite you as a prime example ... thank you for saving me the embarrassment of 'outing' another forum member.
Have you outed one already then ? &%+((£
-
Have you outed one already then ? &%+((£
wouldnt that be a form of trolling and cyber bullying &%+((£
-
I'm sure it must be easier to get the police to take action over racist or homophobic bullying than bullying of individuals that does not have a racist or homophobic slant, but I await your data with interest.
Police aren't vigilantes, unlike the Sky News bunch. But the police certainly move fast in instances such as the tweet(s) about the murdered teacher. I believe there was another example with someone saying daft things after the Glasgow bin truck crash. There was also a chap speedily visited by rozzers after he said something about Ukip.
Why and how they decide to move quickly in some instances but slowly if at all in the rest I've no idea.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/police-ask-blogger-remove-legitimate-tweet-ukip (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/police-ask-blogger-remove-legitimate-tweet-ukip)
Police ask blogger to remove tweet about Ukip
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ann-maguire-leeds-teacher-tweets-3512456 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ann-maguire-leeds-teacher-tweets-3512456)
Vile Twitter troll jailed for posting abusive messages about murder of teacher Ann Maguire
-
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/police-ask-blogger-remove-legitimate-tweet-ukip (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/12/police-ask-blogger-remove-legitimate-tweet-ukip)
Police ask blogger to remove tweet about Ukip
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ann-maguire-leeds-teacher-tweets-3512456 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ann-maguire-leeds-teacher-tweets-3512456)
Vile Twitter troll jailed for posting abusive messages about murder of teacher Ann Maguire
I thought the police were so busy chasing murderers and terrorists but no....plenty of time to visit law abiding bloggers
-
Seems to me that trolling can range from being unpleasant to being criminal. In cases where the police get involved the troller has committed an offense.
Robert Riley and Peter Nunn were both prosecuted for sending grossly offensive and/or menacing messages. This is the law they were prosecuted under;
Communications Act 2003 Section 127(1) covers offensive and threatening messages sent over a "public" electronic communications network. Since 2010 it has increasingly been used to arrest and prosecute individuals for messages posted to sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Section 127(2) covers causing annoyance by sending messages known to be false, which is one of the laws that hoax-999 callers can be prosecuted under.
However, not all such messages will lead to prosecution. The guidelines say;
The Director of Public Prosecutions' 'interim guidelines' (December 2012) for social media prosecutions include the use of Section 127. These attempt to limit the usage of Section 127, to cases which go beyond those which are "offensive, shocking or disturbing; or satirical, iconoclastic or rude; or the expression of unpopular; or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it".[1]
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127
I am concluding that calling someone a troll is meaningless. The word has been hijacked by the media and is used to suggest that everyone making posts on the internet which upset others are criminals. Clearly they aren't. In the case of the McCanns no one has been prosecuted as far as I know despite the campaign waged by their supporters.
-
Seems to me that trolling can range from being unpleasant to being criminal. In cases where the police get involved the troller has committed an offense.
Robert Riley and Peter Nunn were both prosecuted for sending grossly offensive and/or menacing messages. This is the law they were prosecuted under;
Communications Act 2003 Section 127(1) covers offensive and threatening messages sent over a "public" electronic communications network. Since 2010 it has increasingly been used to arrest and prosecute individuals for messages posted to sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Section 127(2) covers causing annoyance by sending messages known to be false, which is one of the laws that hoax-999 callers can be prosecuted under.
However, not all such messages will lead to prosecution. The guidelines say;
The Director of Public Prosecutions' 'interim guidelines' (December 2012) for social media prosecutions include the use of Section 127. These attempt to limit the usage of Section 127, to cases which go beyond those which are "offensive, shocking or disturbing; or satirical, iconoclastic or rude; or the expression of unpopular; or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it".[1]
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127
I am concluding that calling someone a troll is meaningless. The word has been hijacked by the media and is used to suggest that everyone making posts on the internet which upset others are criminals. Clearly they aren't. In the case of the McCanns no one has been prosecuted as far as I know despite the campaign waged by their supporters.
It certainly isn't meaningless and aptly describes some posters behaviour...like many words it means different things to different popele
-
It certainly isn't meaningless and aptly describes some posters behaviour...like many words it means different things to different popele
So if I called you a troll would you know what i meant?
-
These tweets are pretty bad in my opinion;
https://twitter.com/justice4maddie/status/578863650804490240/photo/1
-
So if I called you a troll would you know what i meant?
I've been called a troll several times on here...and I know what people mean..it certainly doesn't imply criminal behaviour
-
I've been called a troll several times on here...and I know what people mean..it certainly doesn't imply criminal behaviour
What do people on here mean when they call you a troll then?
-
What do people on here mean when they call you a troll then?
Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
-
Make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
There's only one true troll operating on this forum who absolutely fulfills that description with virtually every post he makes and that is dear ol Spammy, IMO.
-
There's only one true troll operating on this forum who absolutely fulfills that description with virtually every post he makes and that is dear ol Spammy, IMO.
Isn't it deliberately provocative and offensive to call WS a troll ?
-
Isn't it deliberately provocative and offensive to call WS a troll ?
No, he obviously is one and even admits it himself. BTW, I've just posted some thoughts on your theory in the relevant section 8((()*/
-
WS I was reluctant to cite you as a prime example ... thank you for saving me the embarrassment of 'outing' another forum member.
Your assessments of other posters jolly well should embarrass you.
-
Isn't it deliberately provocative and offensive to call WS a troll ?
No. We all love him to bits. It's a term of endearment in his case.
-
There's only one true troll operating on this forum who absolutely fulfills that description with virtually every post he makes and that is dear ol Spammy, IMO.
I would disagree, WS just highlights the absurdity of the position of some posters by the irony in his posts
-
I would disagree, WS just highlights the absurdity of the position of some posters by the irony in his posts
if he doesn't post deliberately provocative and offensive posts why are his posts often removed and why is he virtually permanently on a warning?
-
I would disagree, WS just highlights the absurdity of the position of some posters by the irony in his posts
I think the distinction is a little too subtle for some Starti.
-
if he doesn't post deliberately provocative and offensive posts why are his posts often removed and why is he virtually permanently on a warning?
Weren't you on a warning a few days ago ?
-
No, he obviously is one and even admits it himself. BTW, I've just posted some thoughts on your theory in the relevant section 8((()*/
Have you ? Well done you !
-
I think the distinction is a little too subtle for some Starti.
I think taking the p out of someone who suffered terrible burns whilst in the forces during the falklands is not subtle...but no doubt you see it as funny
-
By definition nobody on this forum is a troll (sorry WS ?{)(**).
A troll is one whose sole purpose is to disrupt and cause as much offence as possible, with no intention actually to discuss or contribute to discussion.
-
These tweets are pretty bad in my opinion;
https://twitter.com/justice4maddie/status/578863650804490240/photo/1
I understand Brenda was posting similar to these tweets...context is everything
-
No, he obviously is one and even admits it himself. BTW, I've just posted some thoughts on your theory in the relevant section 8((()*/
I admitted to Wumming, not Trolling, there's a subtle difference.
-
I think taking the p out of someone who suffered terrible burns whilst in the forces during the falklands is not subtle...but no doubt you see it as funny
You really do think in one dimension don't you davel.
-
You really do think in one dimension don't you davel.
not at all...but I can see exactly why you cannot address the point I made and stick to your normal childish insults
-
By definition nobody on this forum is a troll (sorry WS ?{)(**).
A troll is one whose sole purpose is to disrupt and cause as much offence as possible, with no intention actually to discuss or contribute to discussion.
Well spotted, I do, occasionally contribute to discussion, just about.
-
not at all...but I can see exactly why you cannot address the point I made and stick to your normal childish insults
Did you make a point ? Are you sure ?
-
Did you make a point ? Are you sure ?
I'm sure you are seeking to deflect so simple question...do you support spams jokes about the appalling injuries suffered by Simon Westwon in the Falklands
-
I think taking the p out of someone who suffered terrible burns whilst in the forces during the falklands is not subtle...but no doubt you see it as funny
I am sure Mr Weston is mightily relieved that a person of your undoubted standing is becoming offended on his behalf.
-
I am sure Mr Weston is mightily relieved that a person of your undoubted standing is becoming offended on his behalf.
most decent people would be offended...that appears to rule out you ,faith and others
-
I think taking the p out of someone who suffered terrible burns whilst in the forces during the falklands is not subtle...but no doubt you see it as funny
I can't recall the exact joke, it's probably been deleted now, but it was something about not having a face & he happened to be the first noteable faceless person that sprung to mind.
& Yes, it was funny.
-
I'm sure you are seeking to deflect so simple question...do you support spams jokes about the appalling injuries suffered by Simon Westwon in the Falklands
I didn't see WS make a joke of that nature but in general I find no humour in those types of joke. Does that answer your question ?
-
I didn't see WS make a joke of that nature but in general I find no humour in those types of joke. Does that answer your question ?
It was amusng in context...
Someone said something about faceless, & I responded with.....like Simon Weston.
Big deal!
-
Wait, no, I think it was about losing face.
I could have used the name of any noteable person who had lost their face, he happened to be the one that came to mind.
Fear of losing face......like Simon Weston.
Does that really make me a bad person?
How many Argies did Simon kill?
-
It was amusng in context...
Someone said something about faceless, & I responded with.....like Simon Weston.
Big deal!
One man's meat is another man's poison WS 8(0(*
-
One man's meat is another man's poison WS 8(0(*
poison being very apt....and the fact you do not condemn that type of joke speaks volumes about you and is not surprising
-
Weren't you on a warning a few days ago ?
My warning was removed because it was given in error. 8(>((
-
poison being very apt....and the fact you do not condemn that type of joke speaks volumes about you and is not surprising
It was a simple one liner dave with the crux of the joke being a different interpretation of the phrase losing face.
It wasn't ' ha ha that Simon Weston bloke suffered serious facial injuries, isn't that hilarious in it's own merit.'
-
Have you ? Well done you !
Thanks, looking forward to your reply.
-
One man's meat is another man's poison WS 8(0(*
Did you like his joke about the recent deaths in Glasgow due to the refuse lorry
-
most decent people would be offended...that appears to rule out you ,faith and others
It probably rules you out too as you appear to be using WS comment merely as a device somewhat in mock indignation to support another issue rather than Mr Weston's injuries.
-
It probably rules you out too as you appear to be using WS comment merely as a device somewhat in mock indignation to support another issue rather than Mr Weston's injuries.
I saw no complaints about the Oscar Pistorious 'not a leg to stand on' gags.
-
It probably rules you out too as you appear to be using WS comment merely as a device somewhat in mock indignation to support another issue rather than Mr Weston's injuries.
it might appear to you....it isn't mock indignation..it's sadness that people can be so nasty
-
I saw no complaints about the Oscar Pistorious 'not a leg to stand on' gags.
It is such a pathetic attempt at being funny
-
It is such a pathetic attempt at being funny
Oh I see, that's the complaint now is it.
Not the I was taking the piss, because I wasn't, but because the joke was crap.
Youl'll whinge no matter what ya big fairy.
-
So basically, we shouldn't mention WS's sick humour, apart from to applaud it, otherwise we are accused of using it to fuel mock indignation. In other words it's not the done thing to actually find his posts offensive. I think that is what Alice is saying.... &%+((£
-
So basically, we shouldn't mention WS's sick humour, apart from to applaud it, otherwise we are accused of using it to fuel mock indignation. In other words it's not the done thing to actually find his posts offensive. I think that is what Alice is saying.... &%+((£
I did that one liner about 6 months ago, dave should have gotten over it by now.
-
So, does that mean if anyone gets offended by jokes about Brenda Leyland we can accuse them of mock indignation too?
-
So, does that mean if anyone gets offended by jokes about Brenda Leyland we can accuse them of mock indignation too?
I haven't seen any.
Besides, my gag was more word play really, wasn't it.
-
So, does that mean if anyone gets offended by jokes about Brenda Leyland we can accuse them of mock indignation too?
Posters are offended by posts about Brenda Leyland making the slightest criticism...never mind jokes
-
Posters are offended by posts about Brenda Leyland making the slightest criticism...never mind jokes
Which posters in particular?
-
I haven't seen any.
Besides, my gag was more word play really, wasn't it.
That's because you haven't made one yet.....that's a line you cannot cross because that would upset your supporters...otherwise no doubt you would have made one
-
Which posters in particular?
read the threads...it's quite interesting...I have been criticised for making reasonable comment about Brenda but you have not been criticised by the same people for a joke about those who died in Glasgow
-
read the threads...it's quite interesting...I have been criticised for making reasonable comment about Brenda but you have not been criticised by the same people for a joke about those who died in Glasgow
That's because you're a serial offender %£&)**#
-
That's because you're a serial offender %£&)**#
so you think jokes about the deaths in Glasgow are acceptable
-
That's because you haven't made one yet.....that's a line you cannot cross because that would upset your supporters...otherwise no doubt you would have made one
Nope, it's just that I honestly can't think of one, word play or otherwise.
-
Nope, it's just that I honestly can't think of one, word play or otherwise.
you are not trying
-
read the threads...it's quite interesting...I have been criticised for making reasonable comment about Brenda but you have not been criticised by the same people for a joke about those who died in Glasgow
When?, Where?
What was this joke that so offended you?
-
so you think jokes about the deaths in Glasgow are acceptable
Depends what the jokes were but broadly yes, comedy/satire has to be bold and provocative.
-
Depends what the jokes were but broadly yes, comedy/satire has to be bold and provocative.
I rest my case
-
I haven't seen any.
Besides, my gag was more word play really, wasn't it.
Would you be offended if I made a joke about Brenda? I suppose neither you, nor any of your fan base could say "yes" without coming across as more than a little hypocritical... &%+((£
-
I rest my case
Will you also be resting your keyboard? 8)-)))
-
Would you be offended if I made a joke about Brenda? I suppose neither you, nor any of your fan base could say "yes" without coming across as more than a little hypocritical... &%+((£
Go on then, try me.
P.S, my joke was word play, not spite.
-
Depends what the jokes were but broadly yes, comedy/satire has to be bold and provocative.
You have no problem with Frankie Boyle's jokes about Madeleine McCann then? Or any of those gags at the expense of raped, dead or missing kids?
-
Will you also be resting your keyboard? 8)-)))
do you think jokes about Brenda's death would be acceptable on this forum
-
Go on then, try me.
P.S, my joke was word play, not spite.
I don't know any jokes about Brenda but I'm sure there are a few. It was the principle of the matter. Is it OK to make a joke about Brenda? Is there anything that is out of bounds for the comedian to make a joke out of?
-
do you think jokes about Brenda's death would be acceptable on this forum
Of course not, just as jokes about Glasgow wouldn't be acceptable outside the victim's houses or in the areas of the net where their families and closest supporters are likely to be reading.
You have to use a bit of sense.
-
I don't know any jokes about Brenda but I'm sure there are a few. It was the principle of the matter. Is it OK to make a joke about Brenda? Is there anything that is out of bounds for the comedian to make a joke out of?
Neither do I.
Until I hear some I can't really say if I'd find them offensive or not.
-
Of course not, just as jokes about Glasgow wouldn't be acceptable outside the victim's houses or in the areas of the net where their families and closest supporters are likely to be reading.
You have to use a bit of sense.
??? It's OK to joke about victims of the Glasgow crash on the net but not outside their families' houses? Don't they have the internet in Glasgow?
-
Of course not, just as jokes about Glasgow wouldn't be acceptable outside the victim's houses or in the areas of the net where their families and closest supporters are likely to be reading.
You have to use a bit of sense.
hypocrisy...as expected
Jokes are to make people laugh....you obviously think it's ok to laugh at the deaths in Glasgow as long as the families don't know
-
Neither do I.
Until I hear some I can't really say if I'd find them offensive or not.
What would determine whether or not you would find them offensive?
-
You have no problem with Frankie Boyle's jokes about Madeleine McCann then? Or any of those gags at the expense of raped, dead or missing kids?
Comedy and satire has to be provocative and often they can get uncomfortable truths across in a shocking joke that makes the audience think. That's the idea anyway.
-
Comedy and satire has to be provocative and often they can get uncomfortable truths across in a shocking joke that makes the audience think. That's the idea anyway.
What possible uncomfortable truths are there to be had about the random deaths of pedestrians in Glasgow or the rape and murder of a small child that could be revealed in a joke?
-
hypocrisy...as expected
Jokes are to make people laugh....you obviously think it's ok to laugh at the deaths in Glasgow as long as the families don't know
I don't know what there is that's particularly political about the Glasgow incident, but Boyle certainly has a gift for getting political points across in jokes. That's healthy.
-
I can't watch Roy 'Chubby' Brown's act, but his fans love it. I also can't watch the 'Carry On' films for different reasons. It's all subjective again. The point is we all take offense at different things. We all disagree on what is acceptable or not.
Therefore as far as 'trolling' is concerned the line has been drawn by the law.
-
I don't know what there is that's particularly political about the Glasgow incident, but Boyle certainly has a gift for getting political points across in jokes. That's healthy.
a very poor attempt at avoiding the question
-
a very poor attempt at avoiding the question
Your discomfort about the jokes is intentional, that's half the point.
-
I can't watch Roy 'Chubby' Brown's act, but his fans love it. I also can't watch the 'Carry On' films for different reasons. It's all subjective again. The point is we all take offense at different things. We all disagree on what is acceptable or not.
Therefore as far as 'trolling' is concerned the line has been drawn by the law.
Wrong again...there are rules on this forum that are enforced that have nothing to do with the law. So do you think its ok to make jokes about the recent deaths in Glasgow
-
Your discomfort about the jokes is intentional, that's half the point.
I think everyone understands your position
-
Your discomfort about the jokes is intentional, that's half the point.
When is discomfort about a joke unintentional then, and how do you tell the difference?
-
I think everyone understands your position
You'd laugh first and then feel uncomfortable/guilty. That is intentional.
-
I don't know what there is that's particularly political about the Glasgow incident, but Boyle certainly has a gift for getting political points across in jokes. That's healthy.
What did you think about Boyle's joke about Madeleine? Healthy?
-
You'd laugh first and then feel uncomfortable/guilty. That is intentional.
I wouldn't laugh...people who are easily led and influenced by others might
-
What would determine whether or not you would find them offensive?
Post some up, try me.
-
When is discomfort about a joke unintentional then, and how do you tell the difference?
I'm just saying that comedians telling occasional jokes that make people gasp is as old as comedy. But saying the same thing in the street wouldn't be inappropriate, and neither would an entire act of provocative jokes.
-
Post some up, try me.
I've already told you I don't know any. I doubt I would be allowed to anyway, and I certainly wouldn't want to cause anyone offence, though it seems some of you "sceptics" would think it simply healthy to do so.
-
I wouldn't laugh...people who are easily led and influenced by others might
Actually I can believe you wouldn't @)(++(*
-
I've already told you I don't know any. I doubt I would be allowed to anyway, and I certainly wouldn't want to cause anyone offence, though it seems some of you "sceptics" would think it simply healthy to do so.
You said you were sure there were quite a few.
-
What did you think about Boyle's joke about Madeleine? Healthy?
Probably. I can't remember it, which shows how seriously I took it - exactly how seriously everyone else should have taken it.
Point is you shouldn't have been in the audience watching him if you were going to be offended by such jokes.
-
You have no problem with Frankie Boyle's jokes about Madeleine McCann then? Or any of those gags at the expense of raped, dead or missing kids?
I haven't heard them, but if he broke the law he would have been dealt with I assume. If things are not unlawful they are allowed. People may not like it but freedom of speech means that things can be said even if some people don't like them. Would you prefer censorship?
@Davel. I'm not wrong. If I started my own blog I could say what I like within the law, I think. Joining a forum is different and you do agree to abide by certain rules. What I laugh at is none of your business.
-
You said you were sure there were quite a few.
So?
-
Probably. I can't remember it, which shows how seriously I took it - exactly how seriously everyone else should have taken it.
So basically there is not a single joke that can be told about any subject by anyone that you would consider offensive?
-
So basically there is not a single joke that can be told about any subject by anyone that you would consider offensive?
No I wouldn't say that.
-
So?
There aren't any.
I'm not usually offended by jokes that don't exist.
-
I haven't heard them, but if he broke the law he would have been dealt with I assume. If things are not unlawful they are allowed. People may not like it but freedom of speech means that things can be said even if some people don't like them. Would you prefer censorship?
@Davel. I'm not wrong. If I started my own blog I could say what I like within the law, I think. Joining a forum is different and you do agree to abide by certain rules. What I laugh at is none of your business.
Who is talking about the law? I'm pointing out the double standard of those defending WS's right to crack tasteless jokes and accusing others of faux outrage, who would almost certainly get on their high horse if I were to starting cracking jokes about (for example) Brenda's death.
-
There aren't any.
I'm not usually offended by jokes that don't exist.
How do you know there aren't any?
-
Who is talking about the law? I'm pointing out the double standard of those defending WS's right to crack tasteless jokes and accusing others of faux outrage, who would almost certainly get on their high horse if I were to starting cracking jokes about (for example) Brenda's death.
I wrote ....like Simon Weston.... about 6 months ago.
-
Okay. Let's leave this shall we. Everyone knows what will happen if any are posted.
-
My warning was removed because it was given in error. 8(>((
Course it was.
-
I wrote ....like Simon Weston.... about 6 months ago.
You've made numerous tasteless remarks on this board in an attempt to get a rise out of people - I tend to ignore most of what you write which is the sensible thing to do with trolls, ie: don't feed them. every now and again I have a lapse and engage with you, and every time I do I kick myself for being so stupid! I will never understand why you weren't booted off the forum months ago, but somehow you've acquired the status of loveable forum pet troll. I guess every forum has to have one!
-
You've made numerous tasteless remarks on this board in an attempt to get a rise out of people - I tend to ignore most of what you write which is the sensible thing to do with trolls, ie: don't feed them. every now and again I have a lapse and engage with you, and every time I do I kick myself for being so stupid! I will never understand why you weren't booted off the forum months ago, but somehow you've acquired the status of loveable forum pet troll. I guess every forum has to have one!
Specify.
Where, when, what exactly?
-
Course it was.
Correct:
Re: You have received a warning
« Sent to: Alfred R Jones on: March 19, 2015, 06:55:59 PM »
I forgot to rescind it. Done it now.
Admin
And that dear Faithliily is why I went from 20% warning to no warning in a flash! Amazing innit?
-
Specify.
Where, when, what exactly?
They've all been removed by now I should imagine. Please don't pretend that you don't make numerous tasteless remarks to get a rise out of people - you even admitted earlier to being a WUM!!
-
I really can't believe that two grown men have spent the afternoon whinging about being offended by a few risqué jokes. Do you really not see how weird that makes you appear ? How do you survive in the outside world ?
-
Who is talking about the law? I'm pointing out the double standard of those defending WS's right to crack tasteless jokes and accusing others of faux outrage, who would almost certainly get on their high horse if I were to starting cracking jokes about (for example) Brenda's death.
Well, I started the thread because some people talk about trolls as if they are all law-breakers when it's clear they're not according to the law, so I'm talking about the law. i'm not talking about good taste or double standards or my own opinion of what other people say. Sorry!
-
I really can't believe that two grown men have spent the afternoon whinging about being offended by a few risqué jokes. Do you really not see how weird that makes you appear ? How do you survive in the outside world ?
You find them risqué...I find them offensive...how do I survive in the outside world...uber successfully..
You have such poor judgement
-
So basically, we shouldn't mention WS's sick humour, apart from to applaud it, otherwise we are accused of using it to fuel mock indignation. In other words it's not the done thing to actually find his posts offensive. I think that is what Alice is saying.... &%+((£
No! what I am saying is that I find it offensive that people use mock distaste as a device to support another theory where as in reality they probably don't give a tinkers cuss about the matter they purport to find distasteful. Just so long as they can use it to their own ends they are happy.
-
Well, I started the thread because some people talk about trolls as if they are all law-breakers when it's clear they're not according to the law, so I'm talking about the law. i'm not talking about good taste or double standards or my own opinion of what other people say. Sorry!
Who refers to trolls as law breakers...the definition you gave at the start of the thread does not mention the law
-
They've all been removed by now I should imagine. Please don't pretend that you don't make numerous tasteless remarks to get a rise out of people- you even admitted earlier to being a WUM!!
I don't deny making remarks, but taste is a matter of opinion.
-
No! what I am saying is that I find it offensive that people use mock distaste as a device to support another theory where as in reality they probably don't give a tinkers cuss about the matter they purport to find distasteful. Just so long as they can use it to their own ends they are happy.
you are making the assumption that the offense is mock...you have no way of knowing if that is true..like faith you want to believe the worst of me and others because if we are well rounded, pleasant , intelligent happy individuals all your assumptions and reasoning is flawed...and it is
-
you are making the assumption that the offense is mock...you have no way of knowing if that is true..like faith you want to believe the worst of me and others because if we are well rounded, pleasant , intelligent happy individuals all your assumptions and reasoning is flawed...and it is
You flatter yourself old son I was not singling you out. On your side of the fence there is more than one.
-
Who refers to trolls as law breakers...the definition you gave at the start of the thread does not mention the law
I was interested in what a troll is and;
A subject which is very much in the news, but what exactly is it, and when will it lead to civil or criminal proceedings?
-
I really can't believe that two grown men have spent the afternoon whinging about being offended by a few risqué jokes. Do you really not see how weird that makes you appear ? How do you survive in the outside world ?
Just maybe the clue is in the emboldened bit.
-
You flatter yourself old son I was not singling you out. On your side of the fence there is more than one.
you have actually accused me directly of mock indignation
-
I really can't believe that two grown men have spent the afternoon whinging about being offended by a few risqué jokes. Do you really not see how weird that makes you appear ? How do you survive in the outside world ?
There's been several people involved in this discussion over the last couple of hours - of course we'd all much rather have been discussing your plausible and logical theory over on the other thread but you won't play wi' us. 8)><(
-
There's been several people involved in this discussion over the last couple of hours - of course we'd all much rather have been discussing your plausible and logical theory over on the other thread but you won't play wi' us. 8)><(
Sorry Alfie but my mum always warned me not to play with strange men !
-
Well, I started the thread because some people talk about trolls as if they are all law-breakers when it's clear they're not according to the law, so I'm talking about the law. i'm not talking about good taste or double standards or my own opinion of what other people say. Sorry!
No need to apologise, the problem without any thread involving numerous different people is that we will all be talking over each other and the subject will usually branch off down different paths.
I gave as an example of "what is trolling" our own resident troll Wonderfulspam. Some however class him as a WUM rather than a troll though I think one of the defining characteristics of a troll is that they exist to wind people up, so I'm not sure that they aren't one and the same thing. I don't think Spammy is a lawbreaker, just a not-very-funny distraction, mostly. You don't have to break the law to be a troll, and I'm not sure who these "some people" are who you claim believe that all trolls are law-breakers.
-
Sorry Alfie but my mum always warned me not to play with strange men !
Wise advice you do well to heed, which begs the question - why are you playing with all us strange men on this thread instead? &%+((£
-
What is a Malicious Communication?
-
What is a Malicious Communication?
This is covered under Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, (see Stones 8.20830), deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.
Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.
-
This is covered under Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988
The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, (see Stones 8.20830), deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.
Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.
Thanks, JP.
Wasn't what Brenda was doing Malicious Communications? From what I have read these communications don't actually have to be received by the persons for whom they were intended.
-
Thanks, JP.
Wasn't what Brenda was doing Malicious Communications? From what I have read these communications don't actually have to be received by the persons for whom they were intended.
Obviously not as Brenda had done nothing criminal.
More previous police resources were tied up though investigating material that warranted absolutely no criminal action.
How many police man hours do you think it took to go through the 80.odd pages of the dossier and do you think that was a useful use of resources ?
-
Obviously not as Brenda had done nothing criminal.
More previous police resources were tied up though investigating material that warranted absolutely no criminal action.
How many police man hours do you think it took to go through the 80.odd pages of the dossier and do you think that was a useful use of resources ?
are you suggesting the dossier compilers wasted police time
-
are you suggesting the dossier compilers wasted police time
p
That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
-
p
That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
well you have to be wrong because that's a criminal offence and no one has been charged
-
p
That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
it was done by people taking the law into their own hands too
-
Obviously not as Brenda had done nothing criminal.
More previous police resources were tied up though investigating material that warranted absolutely no criminal action.
How many police man hours do you think it took to go through the 80.odd pages of the dossier and do you think that was a useful use of resources ?
In my opinion it is very unlikely that in practice action would have been taken over BL's tweets as they stand. However, the sheer scale of her campaign against the McCanns was extremely strange behaviour, and had it continued may have resulted in some action.
If you consider the working: "deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. "
Well, it did seem to be her intention to cause distress and anxiety.
It is puzzling why, given her views, she did not take Brunt up on his offer of an interview to clarify her views about the McCanns.
PS it is also whistling in the wind to suggest that the compliers of the dossier could be subject to action for "wasting police time". What law do you imagine they have broken, Faith?
-
well you have to be wrong because that's a criminal offence and no one has been charged
Pardon.
-
Pardon.
&%+((£ davel speaks in code faithlily its confusing isnt it
-
&%+((£ davel speaks in code faithlily its confusing isnt it
yes it's called the English language
-
In my opinion it is very unlikely that in practice action would have been taken over BL's tweets as they stand. However, the sheer scale of her campaign against the McCanns was extremely strange behaviour, and had it continued may have resulted in some action.
If you consider the working: "deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. "
Well, it did seem to be her intention to cause distress and anxiety.
It is puzzling why, given her views, she did not take Brunt up on his offer of an interview to clarify her views about the McCanns.
PS it is also whistling in the wind to suggest that the compliers of the dossier could be subject to action for "wasting police time". What law do you imagine they have broken, Faith?
That's not what I said JP. Where did I say anything about action ?
-
Obviously not as Brenda had done nothing criminal.
More previous police resources were tied up though investigating material that warranted absolutely no criminal action.
How many police man hours do you think it took to go through the 80.odd pages of the dossier and do you think that was a useful use of resources ?
If Brenda had correctly identified Amy Tierney on twitter I think her tweets would certainly have constituted malicious communications. In fact, I think according to the law they were anyway, even though she got the wrong person. It's a mystery to me why the police considered otherwise - perhaps because there's no point charging a dead person with an offence.
-
That's not what I said JP. Where did I say anything about action ?
"
Obviously not as Brenda had done nothing criminal.
More previous police resources were tied up though investigating material that warranted absolutely no criminal action. "
If you read my response you will see that I am actually agreeing with you.
-
If Brenda had correctly identified Amy Tierney on twitter I think her tweets would certainly have constituted malicious communications. In fact, I think according to the law they were anyway, even though she got the wrong person. It's a mystery to me why the police considered otherwise - perhaps because there's no point charging a dead person with an offence.
&%+((£ She wasn't dead when the 'dossier' was first given to police?
I can't blame them for not being interested tbh. But that's not to say they'll never be interested (or instructed - many of the actions taken so far have been politically motivated).
-
&%+((£ She wasn't dead when the 'dossier' was first given to police?
I can't blame them for not being interested tbh. But that's not to say they'll never be interested (or instructed - many of the actions taken so far have been politically motivated).
Yes but we don't know how long between the dossier being given to the police and Brenda's death do we?
-
Epic trolling from David Starkey on the tele tonight, definitely securing his place in the Trolls Hall of Fame.
-
Yes but we don't know how long between the dossier being given to the police and Brenda's death do we?
Hmm. Good question. I don't know for sure.
-
Epic trolling from David Starkey on the tele tonight, definitely securing his place in the Trolls Hall of Fame.
What's he been up to this time.........?
-
If Brenda had correctly identified Amy Tierney on twitter I think her tweets would certainly have constituted malicious communications. In fact, I think according to the law they were anyway, even though she got the wrong person. It's a mystery to me why the police considered otherwise - perhaps because there's no point charging a dead person with an offence.
I believe several supporters identified BL on Twitter long before Sky dioorstepped her. IYO should their names have been included in the dossier ?
-
What's he been up to this time.........?
Insulting fans of Richard III.
-
What's he been up to this time.........?
Richard the Third, I think. He's not happy. Tough.
-
Richard the Third, I think. He's not happy. Tough.
Is he ever ? Wonderful historian, absolutely obnoxious individual.
-
I believe several supporters identified BL on Twitter long before Sky dioorstepped her. IYO should their names have been included in the dossier ?
I was under the impression that BL used her own RL name to tweet initially, so what exactly is it that you are saying? That McCann supporters broke some law by using her RL name on twitter?
-
Is he ever ? Wonderful historian, absolutely obnoxious individual.
Don'cha just feel like smacking him in the mouth. Supercilious prat.
Whoops. Is that Trolling.
-
Don'cha just feel like smacking him in the mouth. Supercilious prat.
Whoops. Is that Trolling.
Possibly but true nonetheless @)(++(*
-
I was under the impression that BL used her own RL name to tweet initially, so what exactly is it that you are saying? That McCann supporters broke some law by using her RL name on twitter?
Based on your criteria yes.
-
Based on your criteria yes.
so Brenda only used Amy Tierney's name, nothng more?
-
so Brenda only used Amy Tierney's name, nothng more?
But it wasn't Amy Tierney was it ?
What your compadres did to Brenda :
TrulyJudy73 (aka TheJENReturns/s..mCopAmaral) & WAWinters1 (aka KRotcepsni) re: Brenda Leyland. #McCann #RIPSweepyface xx
----------------
2014/02/10
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Ahem Sweepy I would say I have been called a paedo & an enabler enough times by your side chump chops
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Now what do I do that could be considered dangerous...could you please expand on this?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Ah NWO [ censored word ] are you? Explains a lot
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
No importance felt by me Sweepy. I did what I had to do. No conscience then!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
@Jillyslaw has been around much longer than me I think. She is no newbie dear
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
what are normal reactions? We all react differently surely?
----------------
2014/02/11
----------------
--> WAWinter1
Found sweepyface B Ley comment quite ironic. because she has lied. Her son is in LA she isn't. #mccann http://t.co/NZyt4jlM61
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 Is B Ley her name then Tony?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
Is B Ley her name then Tony?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
:P
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Libel is libel Sweepy in whatever form is takes be it videos or tweets
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
OMG I'm on @HiDeHo3 s group now am I...what a laugh. Sorry to disappoint you Sweepy
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
p.s. I really am not Pam. Why are you obsessed with her? Come on, spill the beans
----------------
2014/02/12
----------------
--> WAWinter1 to @TrulyJudy73
Tell Brenda Sweepyface to shut the hell up. She doesn't pay your utilities or mortgage. #mccann http://t.co/2n1K6epdus
----------------
2014/02/13
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
Unions will not do as Elaine is hoping that is for sure. She is likely to lose her job though. #McCann #defamation
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
she shouldn't #troll the #McCann s through twitter then. That is far more horrifying & disgusting @support
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Not at all Sweepy. Just in your mind doggy! Woof woof. #McCann #doggiesdolie
----------------
2014/02/14
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
No dear we argue & fight against the filth & lies emanating from you & yours and we always will
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Evil are the people who would call the #McCann s murderers of their child & paedophiles & swingers. Not normal is it?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Evil are those who label the #McCann s murderers/paedophiles & drunken swingers.
----------------
2014/02/15
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @CrazyHorser @sweepyface
Don't think Sweepy has the foggiest idea what she is on about. It was a remark by Kate #McCann & I understood it.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @CrazyHorser @sweepyface
It was a quote from Kate #McCann but FGS Sweepy has to be so damned awful & find reason to berate her again!
--> TrulyJudy73 to] @CrazyHorser @sweepyface
I have no idea apart from Kate blaming Amaral & co for letting Madeleine down, who Sweepy is talking about?
----------------
2014/03/15
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
whose a window cleaners wife? Interesting concept!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
not impossible at all. If you are post grads you are thick as bricks
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Are you alright in your bonce Sweepy? I have never used AB Mash nor would I ever. Sad life stalking the wrong person
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
is that her name? PM me how you know this will you Tony?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @alfibab3 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
the name rings a bell with me but for why I just am trying hard to recall
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3
@sweepyface <<< you are right. I see her fb page! Same boxer dog & she's more of a dog herself!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
ugh! She is one ugly Mama
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
here she is on some fb page:https://t.co/IZAREOVYBR #McCann. Take a look at the boxer!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
yes that Brenda is sweepyface & lives too close to the #McCann s for my comfort tbh.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
rough looking isn't she?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @alfibab3 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
It is her Jasmine so look at other tweets.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @Josephodriscoll
I should have said she wruff! She only has doggies for companions & cruelly dresses them up like reindeer
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
likely to do anything that Brenda Leyland of Leicester!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
LE8! hmmm
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Countesthorpe and not too far from Glenfield so now does Ms Leyland work at the hospital??
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Keep it Tony for future reference please. #McCann...give it to Jasmine as well?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Good as these villains need to shut up!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
good though because now we have her hook line & sinker. Report/get legal advice.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Is this her because she works at my own NHS Hospital Trust!!http://t.co/usuSViKjLN
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
I think she may be at Peterborough City Hospital Tony! I may have to do some digging?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
She's an admin assistant, not a nurse!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface @AdirenM @SafariSara @ModNrodder
no yours Sweepy! Peterborough City is it? Hmm!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
he has himself to blame but you lady? Shame on you!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
do you know him personally oh high & mighty clerk?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
you live in Leicester oh crazy b........ess!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
do you think so? I reckon they are one & the same
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
what lies! lol
--> TrulyJudy73 to @PetsyLz @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
yes, well remember that!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
it's on your facebook lovie
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
you do state on linkedin Ayrshire now in Leicestershire...well well!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @cosyring
yes he's right & he helped distort it too.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
It is because look at her place of birth Ayrshire! It's her!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Largs Academy Ayrshire! Take a closer look Tony
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
she has abandoned it but enough on there for proof
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Scotland. Part of my family are from there! It's sweepy!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @rebeccasherl @snook1111pie @Josephodriscoll
what kind of minds work that way? the #McCann s had no reason to do any of that!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @AdirenM @rebeccasherl @snook1111pie @Josephodriscoll
Oh really? How interesting...why?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
Brenda has blocked me on facebook...says it all!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
Oops, forget that @Sweepyface Brenda has closed her fb account this very evening...lol! Too late, we have her measure.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @BroGeorgeMadman @WAWinter1
Because Brenda is very obviously @sweepyface. Tom.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @woolyback12 @rebeccasherl @snook1111pie @Josephodriscoll
I would say so Wooly. There's no hope for some of these miscreants on anti
--> TrulyJudy73 to @rebeccasherl @snook1111pie
indeed it is. Just pray you never have to face it Victoria
--> TrulyJudy73 to @Diddybird51 @WAWinter1
@sweepyface <<<is Brenda Leyland who works at my very own Peterborough Health Trust! Who'da thunk it?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @Diddybird51 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
She also worked in Excell admin on ultrasound in BroadWay!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @Diddybird51 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
Thing is she's been lying saying she travels widely with work...ROFL!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @Diddybird51 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
They ain't so caring are they? Frightening what's behind the façade! Eh Sweepy?
----------------
2014/03/17
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Sweepy you are not who you say you are. You are libelling the #McCann s. Be warned Warren Thornton has been closed down
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Your fb page shows you're the owner of this boxer & LinkedIn gives us your place of employment which is not good as NHS!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
You have been a very unpleasant woman and spreading malicious lies and defamation re the #McCann s.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
You say Ayrshire & LinkedIn says Ayrshire, as place of birth! Same name/same everything!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
I think an NHS employee defaming a consultant might be of interest. I won't spill beans but do know staff at PCH
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
yes so stop defaming the #McCann s & jabbing at us & we can all get on with real life! Yay!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Liz is similar to you dear. She works in "caring profession" and yet is a nasty old #troll re #McCann s
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
you need to add @martin_liz to direct tweets to her. She brought our wrath on herself for being so damned awful
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
and the #McCann s don't pay us as silly Jilly would have you believe. We just #hate this injustice flung their way. Think on!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
what even if you are a public servant working for NHS Trust & defaming one of its consultants? You are very wrong. #McCann #PCH
2014/06/10
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface
@DaSteelMan <<<< is changing love, he is seen to be on facebook. I think he's come to realise error of his ways #mccann
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface
~ you are what he said you are. Twit, remove i and add an a. #mccann
2014/07/18
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface
~ you back again Sweepy? Shame you bothered as you're thick as sh1te. Got a thing about Doctors have you? #mccann
2014/07/30
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface @metpoliceuk
~ so you are accusing innocent #McCann s of murder are you Sweepyface? Not the first time either is it love?
2014/08/04
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @BobsStillhere @sweepyface
~ Lol Bob mate. That @sweepyface is a right nutcase.
2014/09/29
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface @skymartinbrunt
~ parp parp! Never mind sweepy old gal you can't help it can you darling?
-
But it wasn't Amy Tierney was it ?
What your compadres did to Brenda :
TrulyJudy73 (aka TheJENReturns/s..mCopAmaral) & WAWinters1 (aka KRotcepsni) re: Brenda Leyland. #McCann #RIPSweepyface xx
----------------
2014/02/10
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Ahem Sweepy I would say I have been called a paedo & an enabler enough times by your side chump chops
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Now what do I do that could be considered dangerous...could you please expand on this?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Ah NWO [ censored word ] are you? Explains a lot
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
No importance felt by me Sweepy. I did what I had to do. No conscience then!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
@Jillyslaw has been around much longer than me I think. She is no newbie dear
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
what are normal reactions? We all react differently surely?
----------------
2014/02/11
----------------
--> WAWinter1
Found sweepyface B Ley comment quite ironic. because she has lied. Her son is in LA she isn't. #mccann http://t.co/NZyt4jlM61
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 Is B Ley her name then Tony?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
Is B Ley her name then Tony?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
:P
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Libel is libel Sweepy in whatever form is takes be it videos or tweets
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
OMG I'm on @HiDeHo3 s group now am I...what a laugh. Sorry to disappoint you Sweepy
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
p.s. I really am not Pam. Why are you obsessed with her? Come on, spill the beans
----------------
2014/02/12
----------------
--> WAWinter1 to @TrulyJudy73
Tell Brenda Sweepyface to shut the hell up. She doesn't pay your utilities or mortgage. #mccann http://t.co/2n1K6epdus
----------------
2014/02/13
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
Unions will not do as Elaine is hoping that is for sure. She is likely to lose her job though. #McCann #defamation
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
she shouldn't #troll the #McCann s through twitter then. That is far more horrifying & disgusting @support
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Not at all Sweepy. Just in your mind doggy! Woof woof. #McCann #doggiesdolie
----------------
2014/02/14
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
No dear we argue & fight against the filth & lies emanating from you & yours and we always will
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Evil are the people who would call the #McCann s murderers of their child & paedophiles & swingers. Not normal is it?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Evil are those who label the #McCann s murderers/paedophiles & drunken swingers.
----------------
2014/02/15
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @CrazyHorser @sweepyface
Don't think Sweepy has the foggiest idea what she is on about. It was a remark by Kate #McCann & I understood it.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @CrazyHorser @sweepyface
It was a quote from Kate #McCann but FGS Sweepy has to be so damned awful & find reason to berate her again!
--> TrulyJudy73 to] @CrazyHorser @sweepyface
I have no idea apart from Kate blaming Amaral & co for letting Madeleine down, who Sweepy is talking about?
----------------
2014/03/15
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
whose a window cleaners wife? Interesting concept!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
not impossible at all. If you are post grads you are thick as bricks
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Are you alright in your bonce Sweepy? I have never used AB Mash nor would I ever. Sad life stalking the wrong person
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
is that her name? PM me how you know this will you Tony?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @alfibab3 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
the name rings a bell with me but for why I just am trying hard to recall
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3
@sweepyface <<< you are right. I see her fb page! Same boxer dog & she's more of a dog herself!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
ugh! She is one ugly Mama
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
here she is on some fb page:https://t.co/IZAREOVYBR #McCann. Take a look at the boxer!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
yes that Brenda is sweepyface & lives too close to the #McCann s for my comfort tbh.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @alfibab3 @sweepyface
rough looking isn't she?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @alfibab3 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
It is her Jasmine so look at other tweets.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @Josephodriscoll
I should have said she wruff! She only has doggies for companions & cruelly dresses them up like reindeer
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
likely to do anything that Brenda Leyland of Leicester!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
LE8! hmmm
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Countesthorpe and not too far from Glenfield so now does Ms Leyland work at the hospital??
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Keep it Tony for future reference please. #McCann...give it to Jasmine as well?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Good as these villains need to shut up!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
good though because now we have her hook line & sinker. Report/get legal advice.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Is this her because she works at my own NHS Hospital Trust!!http://t.co/usuSViKjLN
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
I think she may be at Peterborough City Hospital Tony! I may have to do some digging?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
She's an admin assistant, not a nurse!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface @AdirenM @SafariSara @ModNrodder
no yours Sweepy! Peterborough City is it? Hmm!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
he has himself to blame but you lady? Shame on you!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
do you know him personally oh high & mighty clerk?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
you live in Leicester oh crazy b........ess!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
do you think so? I reckon they are one & the same
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
what lies! lol
--> TrulyJudy73 to @PetsyLz @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
yes, well remember that!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
it's on your facebook lovie
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
you do state on linkedin Ayrshire now in Leicestershire...well well!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @cosyring
yes he's right & he helped distort it too.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
It is because look at her place of birth Ayrshire! It's her!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Largs Academy Ayrshire! Take a closer look Tony
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
she has abandoned it but enough on there for proof
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1 @SafariSara @Josephodriscoll
Scotland. Part of my family are from there! It's sweepy!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @rebeccasherl @snook1111pie @Josephodriscoll
what kind of minds work that way? the #McCann s had no reason to do any of that!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @AdirenM @rebeccasherl @snook1111pie @Josephodriscoll
Oh really? How interesting...why?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
Brenda has blocked me on facebook...says it all!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @WAWinter1
Oops, forget that @Sweepyface Brenda has closed her fb account this very evening...lol! Too late, we have her measure.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @BroGeorgeMadman @WAWinter1
Because Brenda is very obviously @sweepyface. Tom.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @woolyback12 @rebeccasherl @snook1111pie @Josephodriscoll
I would say so Wooly. There's no hope for some of these miscreants on anti
--> TrulyJudy73 to @rebeccasherl @snook1111pie
indeed it is. Just pray you never have to face it Victoria
--> TrulyJudy73 to @Diddybird51 @WAWinter1
@sweepyface <<<is Brenda Leyland who works at my very own Peterborough Health Trust! Who'da thunk it?
--> TrulyJudy73 to @Diddybird51 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
She also worked in Excell admin on ultrasound in BroadWay!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @Diddybird51 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
Thing is she's been lying saying she travels widely with work...ROFL!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @Diddybird51 @WAWinter1 @sweepyface
They ain't so caring are they? Frightening what's behind the façade! Eh Sweepy?
----------------
2014/03/17
----------------
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Sweepy you are not who you say you are. You are libelling the #McCann s. Be warned Warren Thornton has been closed down
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Your fb page shows you're the owner of this boxer & LinkedIn gives us your place of employment which is not good as NHS!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
You have been a very unpleasant woman and spreading malicious lies and defamation re the #McCann s.
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
You say Ayrshire & LinkedIn says Ayrshire, as place of birth! Same name/same everything!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
I think an NHS employee defaming a consultant might be of interest. I won't spill beans but do know staff at PCH
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
yes so stop defaming the #McCann s & jabbing at us & we can all get on with real life! Yay!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
Liz is similar to you dear. She works in "caring profession" and yet is a nasty old #troll re #McCann s
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
you need to add @martin_liz to direct tweets to her. She brought our wrath on herself for being so damned awful
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
and the #McCann s don't pay us as silly Jilly would have you believe. We just #hate this injustice flung their way. Think on!
--> TrulyJudy73 to @sweepyface
what even if you are a public servant working for NHS Trust & defaming one of its consultants? You are very wrong. #McCann #PCH
2014/06/10
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface
@DaSteelMan <<<< is changing love, he is seen to be on facebook. I think he's come to realise error of his ways #mccann
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface
~ you are what he said you are. Twit, remove i and add an a. #mccann
2014/07/18
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface
~ you back again Sweepy? Shame you bothered as you're thick as sh1te. Got a thing about Doctors have you? #mccann
2014/07/30
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface @metpoliceuk
~ so you are accusing innocent #McCann s of murder are you Sweepyface? Not the first time either is it love?
2014/08/04
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @BobsStillhere @sweepyface
~ Lol Bob mate. That @sweepyface is a right nutcase.
2014/09/29
--> s..m_Cop_Amaral to @sweepyface @skymartinbrunt
~ parp parp! Never mind sweepy old gal you can't help it can you darling?
can anyone be bothered to read all that rubbish...Brenda was obnoxious and posters were obnoxious back to her....but Brenda was also abusive towards the McCanns
-
Faithlilly, if you think I'm interested in defending that pile of twitter shit from my so-called compadres you've got another think coming, they're all as bad as each other IMO and if they'd ALL been done for malicious comms the world would be a pleasenter place, do you not agree?
-
Faithlilly, if you think I'm interested in defending that pile of twitter shit from my so-called compadres you've got another think coming, they're all as bad as each other IMO and if they'd ALL been done for malicious comms the world would be a pleasenter place, do you not agree?
Not if they have broken no law.
-
Wonder if the police will be investigating these so-called trolls donating to Amaral's Fund?
£1,000
MPS -
8 hours ago
MPS from an anonymous but very large group of Brit. police officers, outraged at the way in which an SIO has been treated. This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations whould be conducted, “Without Fear or Favour, Malice or ill will”. The world can clearly see where the malice and ill-will are in this case.
-
Wonder if the police will be investigating these so-called trolls donating to Amaral's Fund?
£1,000
MPS -
8 hours ago
MPS from an anonymous but very large group of Brit. police officers, outraged at the way in which an SIO has been treated. This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations whould be conducted, “Without Fear or Favour, Malice or ill will”. The world can clearly see where the malice and ill-will are in this case.
I believe it is an offence to impersonate a police officer ... ?>)()<
-
I believe it is an offence to impersonate a police officer ... ?>)()<
and what if they are police officers. &%+((£
Then you probably think all police officers believe the mccanns. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I believe it is an offence to impersonate a police officer ... ?>)()<
Which is why, taken with the size of the donation, they are probably who they say they are.
-
I think all the donations are being made by one nasty little troll, with more money than sense, who is drip feeding it in to make it look as though lots of people support Dr Amaral.
-
I think all the donations are being made by one nasty little troll, with more money than sense, who is drip feeding it in to make it look as though lots of people support Dr Amaral.
Obvious !!
-
I think all the donations are being made by one nasty little troll, with more money than sense, who is drip feeding it in to make it look as though lots of people support Dr Amaral.
There's definitely more than one person with more money than sense ...
-
and what if they are police officers. &%+((£
Then you probably think all police officers believe the mccanns. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
An a-political unbiased force contributing to a fund for a cop with a criminal conviction ... their boss might be interested.
-
Which is why, taken with the size of the donation, they are probably who they say they are.
Actually ... the size of the donation is risible if the numbers alleged to be involved are correct ... if they are not who they say they are we may actually see a demonstration of what the police think of trolling if it involves them.
-
I think all the donations are being made by one nasty little troll, with more money than sense, who is drip feeding it in to make it look as though lots of people support Dr Amaral.
Got it wrong yet again Alice. I would put it slightly higher based on the number of repeat donations. Glad to see Leanne priming doners for the long haul.
-
Got it wrong yet again Alice. I would put it slightly higher based on the number of repeat donations. Glad to see Leanne priming doners for the long haul.
It would appear that the donors are quite prepared for the long haul. The only thing that would stop this seems to me to be if 'the fund' runs out of money. Then everyone can move on.
-
An a-political unbiased force contributing to a fund for a cop with a criminal conviction ... their boss might be interested.
It may have escaped your attention, but where does it say in this country, who may or may not contribute.
Many view the actions of the mccanns as criminal neglect, for which they have escaped scot free.
-
It would appear that the donors are quite prepared for the long haul. The only thing that would stop this seems to me to be if 'the fund' runs out of money. Then everyone can move on.
Doesn't worry me in the slightest what people want to do with their money ... doesn't impoverish me ... but it is going to be a long haul if the speed of Portuguese litigation with intervening happen-stances regularly delaying proceedings occurs.
Although I think JP may have said that in fairness to those awarded damages appeals are concluded pretty quickly as a matter of course.
What is the response from the Portuguese end of affairs? Are the citizens of Portugal matching the fund raising achievements of the Brits? for example ...
£5
Sharon Wheatley
5 hours ago
this is my 7th donation to try to get it up to target. I will continue to make donations after the target is met .. Pode a Justica seja feita . Gostam de Amaral ♥
-
I'd be interested to know if any contributions to the slush fund have come from Germany, particularly that very supportive German policeman.
-
Thread title: What is Trolling?
I just looked it up in the urban dictionary , this'll do me:
Top Definition
trolling
Being a pr**k on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
-
Thread title: What is Trolling?
I just looked it up in the urban dictionary , this'll do me:
Top Definition
trolling
Being a pr**k on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
Well, according to The Star those trolls who support Amaral are sick. The urban dictionary says;
Sick
Adjective.
1. to feel ill, or not well.
2. A secondary word for awesome.
3. Gross, disgusting.
4. Tired, pissed off.
5. Horny.
Take your pick from the above. @)(++(* @)(++(*