On one hand, I agree.



Again, agreed.

However, if, for instance, someone consistently refuses to support whatever their opinion is with anything relating to facts, or consistently refuses to 'remember' what was pointed out (with data etc) in a previous discussion, or refuses to answer direct and simple questions and only pops up again to spout a soundbite (without supporting it with any data etc), then we are into a rather different realm.

Perhaps it's simply trolling. And trolling really irritates people – possibly particularly when they're trying to have something approaching a serious discussion of a subject.

That, of course, is probably why most trolls do it in the first place, to be honest. But then how could that be seen to be anything other than crass behaviour?

More specifically, to accuse someone of 'abusing' a child when they were commenting on someone who was 13 nearly three decades ago, is simply ridiculous. You can't abuse someone restrospectively – unless you have a time machine in the garden.

Personally, I don't think it is right to call someone stupid even though their thought processes are illogical.
They are usually ill-informed, ignorant, blinkered, poorly educated etc.
But comments like 'run along little boy.' and 'come back when you are ready to play with the big boys' are uncalled for ... but rife.
Stick to what is said.

Durham Giant wrote:I agree with that as does Women's aid http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-vi ... s+releases Maybe that is why some common sense, training and proper risk assessment would not go amiss Two social inadequates in the North east, with limited resources no significant criminal history that we are aware off, who pose a negligible risk of acting on what they have posted, make threats against a well to do women in the South East suggests the risk was very low. Yet time and resources, prosecution and court time go into it. 2 Women a week are killed by their partners maybe a bit extra time and training dealing with that ratrher than looking at people who post tweets that are offensive. ( there are many more examples of idiots that the police track down and prosecute not just these two). Then there is the issue of whether 12 weeks in prison for a woman who was drunk and 8 weeks in prison for a vulnerable agrophobic who will probably spend most of his time in a VPU or prison hospital . Are they that much of a risk they need prison? I'd definitely agree there needs more time and training given toward domestic abuse cases, although the problem with domestic abuse doesn't just lay on the police's side. Sadly the women (its generally women but I know there are cases involving men as the victim) involved often don't report the abuse or want to talk about the issue. Personally I think there needs to be more education in general so as friends and family know what to look out for in such cases, although again that's far from a perfect solution. But I still don't think that should lead to police or CPS not following other, more minor, cases through. I do think a jail sentence appears very harsh when you see how some criminals escape jail sentences for, in my opinion, much worse crimes.

Durham Giant wrote:I agree with that as does Women's aid http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-vi ... s+releases Maybe that is why some common sense, training and proper risk assessment would not go amiss Two social inadequates in the North east, with limited resources no significant criminal history that we are aware off, who pose a negligible risk of acting on what they have posted, make threats against a well to do women in the South East suggests the risk was very low. Yet time and resources, prosecution and court time go into it. 2 Women a week are killed by their partners maybe a bit extra time and training dealing with that ratrher than looking at people who post tweets that are offensive. ( there are many more examples of idiots that the police track down and prosecute not just these two). Then there is the issue of whether 12 weeks in prison for a woman who was drunk and 8 weeks in prison for a vulnerable agrophobic who will probably spend most of his time in a VPU or prison hospital . Are they that much of a risk they need prison? I'd definitely agree there needs more time and training given toward domestic abuse cases, although the problem with domestic abuse doesn't just lay on the police's side. Sadly the women (its generally women but I know there are cases involving men as the victim) involved often don't report the abuse or want to talk about the issue. Personally I think there needs to be more education in general so as friends and family know what to look out for in such cases, although again that's far from a perfect solution. But I still don't think that should lead to police or CPS not following other, more minor, cases through. I do think a jail sentence appears very harsh when you see how some criminals escape jail sentences for, in my opinion, much worse crimes.

The problem with social media is quite similar to those of multiculturalism - In theory, both are great ideas, but in reality they will always have trouble when mixing with simple human nature.

Now, I don't condone death threats, but let's not kid ourselves that this sort of thing has only begun with the invention of the internet - Threatening letters and menacing telephone calls have been a staple of life for a long, long time. The only reason for a perceived rise in these threats is that the internet is a lot more instant - Actually writing a threatening letter took a bit of effort, whereas typing some witless threat online can be done in seconds, usually before the guilty party has even had chance to take stock of the possible results of their actions.

The thing is, actual human nature dictates that people will bully and name call.... Looking at that Beth Tweddle link, despite the cruelty and ignorance of much that was written, a lot of people would actually dismiss most of that as banter - Certainly not humorous banter, but banter all the same.

I saw a similar episode not long ago when the footballer Jonjo Shelvey was taking part in a live webchat - The stuff he was bombarded with was extremely cruel, yet watching it unfold live, you couldn't help but feel he had opened himself up for such abuse.

I think if people are going to be bold as to enter into public forums, then, unfortunately, they are going to have to be aware that they are going to be exposed to various cranks and will have to deal with them accordingly - I'm not saying that 'death threats' should just be ignored, but people and, most importantly, the police must be able to judge the likelihood of a supposed threat being real.... Those two characters mentioned in the original post were obviously harmless cranks - Throwing the weight of the law at them does seem a bit OTT, and actually jailing them seems a tad bizarre.

As a male, who is white, and straight, and able-bodied (extra few lbs not withstanding ), i get the feeling any level of abuse towards me would just be laughed off and i'd be told to 'suck it up'

I wasn't aware that that was a choice they are forced to make. But I find your conclusion that no time and effort should be spent on confronting racism, sexism or threatening words, just because made via media, startling.

I am amazed that people didn't realise that by using sites which allow comments to be posted, that there would be derisiory, bigotted, nasty, threatening comments made.
It happens on this site.
It's how you deal with them that is the challange.
Don't join the sites or don't read the comments.
Is that too difficult a concept?

typical twisting of post from you.
I said they look into them do a risk assessment and then go back to the complainant and say it is not a serious or creditable threat therefore we will not take it forward.

If Criados perezs were two blokes who had convictions for DV, rape, threats to kill, stalking etc then the risks would have been higher and action taken.

Wasting time on drunk, learning disabled agraphobics who are lonely and just seeking attention etc should not have been taken further IMHO.

I now await the usual nested quote reply with half sentences and specific replies to another post broken down into every semantic meaning of a word then taken out of context with the usual conclusion that something was said which never was.

She didn't know their circumstances when she was being threatened. Indeed didn't they intimate that they were close by and could get to her? Put yourself in her shoes for a minute. If it causes her genuine distress then she is perfectly entitled to have the cause of this distress investigated AND prosecuted. Can you imagine if the anything happened to her at their hands after the Old Bill told her they were just a couple of numpties? The press would be on it like the stink on s**t! Who can quantify how many people may have been put off escalating social media abuse into something more physically harmful by these prosecutions? You can't! I think if you're daft enough to post these threats then you've got to accept the consequences when the Old Bill come through your front door just before dawn. I believe the female who was jailed has 2 previous convictions for assault. Nice girl!

The story of the boxer tracking down the "bell end with a voice" on twitter was amusing. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cu ... uYv-vZ9I18 T'was just a bit of fun apparently. You can apologise on telly as much as you want matey, but you have caused damage. Some of could be profoundly psychological to some.

The story of the boxer tracking down the "bell end with a voice" on twitter was amusing. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cu ... uYv-vZ9I18 T'was just a bit of fun apparently. You can apologise on telly as much as you want matey, but you have caused damage. Some of could be profoundly psychological to some.