It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UK takes online 'hate crime' more seriously than domestic abuse

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
At the moment there is yet another big furor over twitter abuse.

This being when a famous celebrity or personality gets far too much tick and can no longer take it so they go public and post the worst of the tweets that they have received, this then sparks much more abuse for the person and they get well lots of publicity.

The personality in question is Stan Collymore, and ex England footballer and current radio presenter on talksport.

He takes to twitter to stir things up for his show and goes after whoever in attempt to drive up his ratings, usually targeting specific groups of supporters.

One of the most popular ways for people to abuse collymore is to have a pop at his history of domestic violence, something he has never received any sort of prison sentence for despite openly admitting some quite vicious assaults.

Collymore is moaning about receiving threats on twitter, saying he wants twitter to taker action and help the police to prosecute those involved.

A bit of background reading if anyone is interested.

news.uk.msn.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk... ck-blue-relationship.html

Here is my point.

I could threaten to smash a famous celebrities head in on twitter and would most likely get a prison sentence if identified and caught, no matter what i said or did i wouldn't be able to get out of the time for the crime if found guilty.

I could actually smash someone's head in who i do know, and as long as i said the right things not receive any sort of punishment in the form of prison .

How is the law loaded like this where an empty online threat is treated more seriously than actual violence?

Proof if ever we've needed it that the laws aren't there for our protection. They're there to keep the celebs, politicians, bankers and royals on a level about the rest of us.

Got to the point where people are genuinely more offended by some kids laughing at someone's horse teeth or dolphin nose than they are about people dying in the streets.




posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The comments aimed at Stan Collymore are absolutely foul and disgusting, racist abuse the likes of which i have never seen.
the fact that he himself is no angel, does not mean that these people making these comments should not be hunted down and arrested.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WilsonWilson
 


Do you think abuse over the internet is worse than real life physical abuse?

Do you think it's right that children are locked up for tweeting these vile things at him?

Millions of pounds of public money is being spent to massage the egos of out celebrities on the internet who seem incapable of doing what the rest of us do and ignoring it.

Instead it is turned into a major crime when it is not.

At the end of the day collymore can choose not to read the tweets he is sent, the same cannot be said about someone who is on the floor and has a kick directed at their head.

Twitter is supposed to be a micro blogging site for everyone; it is not a playground for the rich and famous, those who already have a big voice, wanting to flex their muscles and show off their control.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


I think if children are writing these tweets, then yes scare the livings daylights out of them, they are foul and disgusting comments.
the fact that they were made because he accused a footballer of diving? ridiculous in the extreme.
If people hated Stan Collymore why didnt they bring up his abuse of women? Thats something he has chosen to do, the colour of his skin is just random.



posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


You cant ignore something less dangerous because there are more dangerous things happens.

Which would media choose for their rating?

a known person or Joe and Jody from the neighborhood?

Media is all over it for rating.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

bates
I could threaten to smash a famous celebrities head in on twitter and would most likely get a prison sentence if identified and caught, no matter what i said or did i wouldn't be able to get out of the time for the crime if found guilty.


Quite right - it is exactly the same as making the threat in person, which is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986, Sections 4 and 5.


bates
I could actually smash someone's head in who i do know, and as long as i said the right things not receive any sort of punishment in the form of prison .


Good luck with that! If that person was in no way a threat to you and you "smashed their head in", that would almost certainly result in a GBH charge, if not attempted murder, no matter what you said.


bates
How is the law loaded like this where an empty online threat is treated more seriously than actual violence?


It isn't. The people who threatened that (revolting) feminist woman got 8 and 12 weeks separately for their offences, which included threats to kill and rape (what's worse is one of them making the threats is a woman!)

If you actually did kill or rape someone, you would certainly get more than a few weeks.


bates
Proof if ever we've needed it that the laws aren't there for our protection. They're there to keep the celebs, politicians, bankers and royals on a level about the rest of us.


Don't be daft... Your "point" is based on a fallacy, ergo any conclusions you make about them are also wrong.

Oh, considering you OP about domestic violence being seen as "less of a crime", I beg to differ



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
More examples today.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

unprovoked assault = no jail time.

this is an actual kick to the head as well.

www.bbc.co.uk...

this pair have been jailed for being abusive on twitter.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Well, if he takes to twitter to deliberately stir things up for his shows, surely he can't be serious in approaching the police due to threats received as a result?

Most of us learned as children that if you disturb the hive, expect the bees to attack you.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


For that example, it would appear his early guilty plea went in his favour - it was also a relatively minor offence and, it would appear, to be his first offence. All these things seem to be why he received a suspended sentence. Please note, if he does anything else in that 12 months, he will get his 4 months inside + whatever he should get for his next offence.

To quote the Magistrate:



'You used a weapon - your foot - we believe it deserves a custodial sentence but you have been shown leniency because you have shown remorse and it was an isolated incident and you have previous good character.'


Also, being a Magistrate, they have limited powers for detention anyway.

I myself have an Assault conviction, but because it was my first offence and I had mitigating circumstances, I only received a fine of £450. That is how the system works.

Now, for the two who sent the tweets, one of them has 25 previous convictions! She is also awaiting trial for two counts of assaulting a Police officer. Neither entered a guilty plea either, which counts against you if found guilty.
edit on 24/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
double post
edit on 24/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


so do you think that a threat of violence is worse than committing an act of violence?



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


Not necessarily - however constant or sustained threats can have a detrimental affect on mental health, whereas a single attack might just leave you with a bruise. Every case is different, which is something the Justice system recognises and you seem to be wanting to ignore.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
You'd have to be semi retarded to take those threats on twitter as real.

To take a kick to the head like the lad in the daily mail article is going to do proper damage both physically and psychologically.

I've never seen a clearer case of someone going all out to make sure they got a load of abuse than with that caroline whatsherface.

She started off with people calling her horse face when she first started crying about it.

Brought it on herself every step of the way.

She was openly egging her 'abusers' on.

This is just another example of freedoms on the internet being eroded, it's not even subtle with the way they're going about it.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


Quite, I agree with you she made the situation worse and I dislike the woman intently anyway for her unabashed hatred of all things "male" just because her Daddy walked out on their mother, it would appear.

I think it speaks volumes of her when people like Owen Jones call her a "a brilliant fighter" - Owen, by the way, is a colossal bell end himself.

That said, I did point out why the Twitter trolls got prison and the head-kicker got a substantial fine/suspended sentence. You can't treat offences arbitrarily, they have to be taken on individual "merit".

Headkicker man showed true remorse, had previous good character and pleaded guilty from the start - as a result, the JP showed him leniency, although he did get quite a big fine.

Twitter trolls had many previous convictions, denied the offences, went through a lengthy and expensive trial and got the full weight of the law for their efforts, although they will only serve 6-8 weeks max anyway, probably less and in a low-security Prison where it'll be more like a Travelodge than anything else.
edit on 24/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I Know, I understand the law.

I'm calling it an arse.

One designed to benefit the rich and powerful whilst #ting on the poor and weak from a great height.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


I'm not quite sure how you've come to that conclusion based on what you have said in this thread - for one, the only example of someone "getting away with it" you have provided would appear to be a young, Eastern European immigrant who most certainly isn't "rich or powerful" and it is quite clear why he escaped a prison sentence.

Besides, at this moment in time, there are several of the "rich and powerful" undergoing investigations or trials for various crimes committed, from sexual predator TV/Radio stars, to Footballers who think they can drive while drunk, without a license or fix matches and recently, MP's sent to prison for perjury or fraud.

I think if you wanted to make this point, you have gone the wrong way about it and your argument seems disjointed, at best.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The head kicker was released because he assaulted a no one.

The tweeters are locked up because they have the 'cheek' to have a pop at the rich and famous on twitter.

Not sure why you're bringing up paedophile celebrities to back up your point, these people were getting away with sexing up kids and young women for years laughing in the face of the law. It's only because so many people have stood up and demanded action that a few of them are finally paying the price.

Sacrificial lambs put out to pay so that those at the very top like lord mcalpine can get away with it until they supposedly pass away.



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bates
 


Again, that isn't even slightly true. A cursory search on Google, with no real effort, can bring up a whole host of the "rich and famous" getting their cumupence..

Dappy given suspended Prison sentence for assault

Lost prophets pervert jailed

Top Barrister convicted of asault

Another pervert, Jonathan King, sentenced

Footballer Marlon King sent down for sexual assault

Peer convicted of Assault

MP jailed for Perverting the course of Justice

EPL Footballer jailed for causing death

Another footballer jailed

Ray Wilkins convicted of DUI

Jermaine Pennat jailed

I think it is merely down to perception for you - the "rich and famous" get punished in the same way as the rest of us when caught. In relation to the celebs being prosecuted for historic offences, you have to bear in mind that attitudes now are a lot different than they were back in the 60's, 70's and even the 80's when it came to this sort of thing, hence why no one paid any attention to the complaints - women were harassed on a regular basis in the workplace up until quite recently, but when complaints where made now, they were acted upon. Much has changed since those dark and dreary days.

Anyhoo, I am not sure why you're making this argument now. The thread title and OP seem to imply that the topic was about twitter crimes being viewed worse than domestic abuse
edit on 24/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I put this in my op.




Proof if ever we've needed it that the laws aren't there for our protection. They're there to keep the celebs, politicians, bankers and royals on a level aboutthe rest of us.


above, not about btw.

I was using the twitter cases because it perfectly highlights my points.

Seriously though, back to the point in hand.

Do you feel a law that locks people up for booting you in head is more worthy than one that locks kids up for tweeting stuff to celebrities?

Do you think a law that means kids are locked up for tweeting nonsense is designed to do anything other than keep people quiet and in their place?



posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join