Unfortunately phrased
Officers in Waltham Forest [northeast London] received an allegation of malicious communications from an MP.
These MPs who send malicious communications, eh! You'd think they'd know better...
Twitter UK was in damage-limitation mode overnight after high-profile British women were bombarded by sick threats and abuse - and the trolling made front-page headlines. Labour MP Stella Creasy complained to police on Monday evening after receiving a death threat from an anonymous tweeter. Scotland Yard said this morning: …
You could stop voting for politicians that you don't like.
Or you can get out and vote for ones that represent your interests.
Kinda pointless if you live in a safe constituency, though.
Anyone care to predict my next MP?
It was this for a while. Big difference, huh?"
Even if everyone who voted picked the same 'non-Tory' person it wouldn't have changed anything.
Get out and vote.
I do. So did nearly three-quarters of my fellow constituents last time around. But with 55% of the vote being Tory and more than double the second-place candidate it was a slam dunk. The only way they could have been defeated is if everyone who didn't vote had chosen to vote for the second place candidate and even then it would have been close - 42% against 48% if my maths is correct.
So yes, I have a voice. It's blue. And female. And we all know what that kind of situation that can lead to :D
If your not happy with the situation, and you think your vote wont count, then go one step further - get out there and ACTIVELY campaign for a candidate that you DO want representing you.
A lot of people vote for the same party that they've always voted for because they dont have any better information. Get out there, educate your fellow constituents and then you might have a chance of dislodging your safe seat status.
The problem is that there's a lot of people who don't *want* to know about their candidate. They vote for Party X and the reason they do that is because their parents voted for Party X or because Party X is seen as the "The Party of... whatever" which is a group they consider themselves to be in.
When you only get to put one X on a piece of paper, there is insufficient granularity to determine what the people *really* want (and, of course, that's the way the two big political parties like it...)
"When you only get to put one X on a piece of paper, there is insufficient granularity to determine what the people *really* want (and, of course, that's the way the two big political parties like it...)"
Indeed. New Zealand only went to German-style MMP from Westminster-style FPP because the public demand for a referendum was so high they couldn't ignore it - and the government + opposition + media + industrialists did everything they could to obstruct it, including offering 5 oher PR systems and pushing the hell out of them whilst ignoring MMP or calling it the work of the devil.
The results after 20 years is that it works better than FPP, but coalition partners can be a real bitch to deal with.
20 years on, after a second referendum on whether to keep or change mmp (which overwhemingly endorsed MMP plus a couple of tweaks to prevent list MPs crossing the floor or breaking away as independents whilst keeping their seats and thereby becoming kingmakers), the government + opposition + media + industrialists decreed that the results while interesting were not binding.
It's worth bearing in mind Heinlein's theory that it's best to have the govt and opposition all warring amogst themselves, so that the rest of the world can get on with things - and that the most dangerous time is when a govt has enough majority at all levels to ram everything through that it wants to do.
This post has been deleted by its author
"I'd say they are not - but public figures (such as MPs and campaigners) tend to attract most abuse, it seems simply because they're well known."
Being well known, they probably do get more abuse - but it's also likely that, being well known, we're more likely to hear about the abuse if it goes too far, whereas if it was directed at Mr Joe Average, we'd be less likely.
This post has been deleted by its author
I cannot understand this high-jacking of the term Trolls / Trolling. I'd say 99% of the readers on elreg understand the proper use of the term as we are all versed in its application. The context in which you use it, Kelly, is firmly that of the mainstream media (BBC et al) who fail to grasp what it stands for and who happily trot out the internet buzz word of the week without any comprehension of how it has entered common(ish) parlance.
True, but its a losing battle. When a word gets taken over by the mainstream there isn't much you can do about it. You can try an tell them it should be 'griefer' or whatever and they'll happily ignore you in total obliviousness. Like in hacker/cracker.
Probably better to save your breath and accept that words' meanings change over time.
Trolls = annoying, offensive but legal
Criminals = criminals.
The beauty of a *good* criminal justice system is it recognises that a criminal act is criminal, regardless of how it's perpetrated. Thus we have a law which says it's criminal to kill someone. Simples. No need for a list of methods of killing that are illegal.
We all used to know what 'trolling' meant and it did not mean making threats of aggression, sexual or otherwise.
Conflating the two is a serious mistake, not entirely dissimilar to the current conflation of the issues surrounding "sexual material that children might see" with "sexual material in which children are seen": the former arises from the law of unintended consequences (of having a free and open Internet); the latter is a hideous crime already covered by existing legislation. Nevertheless, in both cases, some people attempt to use the existence of the absolutely indefensible latter as a reason to take draconian against Internet freedom, by banging on about the former as if it is somehow related.
One of the lessons in Orwell's 1984 is that by altering language it is possible to create tramlines of thought which are very difficult to leave, and therefore those who control the language control - to a large extent - the minds: threatening someone with rape is trolling; threatening someone with rape is a terrible thing; trolling is a terrible thing; trolling should be banned. Of course no-one should be convinced by such invalid enthymematic logic, but the sad fact is that many voters cannot even dissect such arguments - and if the popular media continue to refuse to help them in this regard or, as in this case, actively assist the political class in maintaining the confusion, we are all going to suffer.
I beg to differ John. Trolling has always been synonymous with online abuse and bullying, it's just that before Facebook, Twitter and Web 2.0, we didn't see it because the few people using the internet at that time tended to be those "computer kids" from school who spent all their lunch hour in the computer labs even on hot summer days. Due to such oddness those people rightly or wrongly faced bullying at school as matter of routine and therefore took bullying and abuse to be a normal part of life and mirrored this into their little online worlds.
The difference now in 2013 is the internet is rapidly becoming more mature and seasoned as respectable society embraces the digital age. It's no longer the domain of a few kids tapping away about dungeons and dragons in their bedrooms. We see far more normal people using the internet now, including celebrities and politicians. Frankly normal decent society just won't tolerate the kind abuse that used to be the norm online. Of course trolling can't be banned (technically speaking, I am well aware of how distribution works on the internet), but I am amazed you are trying to somehow justify trolling. I am sure you'd change you tune quick if YOU were the one being trolled.
Trolling has always been synonymous with online abuse and bullying
[Citation needed]
Meanwhile the Urban Dictionary doesn't agree with you.
Neither does the Hacker's dictionary.
In other words, you are making stuff up and are trying to redefine words. Being the cancer of the Internet.
normal decent society just won't tolerate the kind abuse that used to be the norm online
Yeah. "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes ... because it is ... obscene."
@DAM
Trolling has always been synonymous with online abuse and bullying
[Citation needed]
Here you go.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/19/how-to-starve-the-trolls/
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/inhuman-abusive-internet-trolls-deserve-exposure-20120831-255kq.html
These are two examples from mainstream media that took less than a minute to find. There are others.
For better or worse, the average punter understands trolling to be abusive and bullying. Deal with it.
Holy crap, those articles are from up to 9 months ago.....
Please try again and try to find some articles from the previous century.
This is like telling people about Usenet in the 80's. They have everything from comp.sys.compliers to alt.sex.with.dogs, and everything inbetween.
@ Theodore.
Perfect!
Everyone else who is still failing to comprehend the common understanding of Trolling (in our peer group of course) despite links being posted to help you, look at what young Theodore has produced. A classic example. He is not Bullying or rude, but someone is going to take that bait for sure!
I am actually starting to feel like we're approaching a paradox here, A Troll, trolling within trolling....
Trollception!
"I am sure you'd change you tune quick if YOU were the one being trolled."
I have been, many times, I've even had my address published with Streetview shots of where I live.
meh... Its mostly noise and bluster.
A.strange.game.The.only.winning.move.is.not.to.play.How.about.a.nice.game.of.chess?
As soon as you lose the desire to get the last word in, or defend against obvious trolling, its not that big a deal. So what if some troll gets the last word in slagging you off. It makes no difference.
" it's just that before Facebook, Twitter and Web 2.0"
Just how young are you?
Forums have been around for at least 20 years in one form or another.
Get out of school and learn a bit about the webs before spouting bollocks
(this is not yet trolling btw, though it could turn into it in a future post)
I think that this service should have a yearly subscription paid for with a traceable credit or debit card. The charge should be something small but it would stop people posting things like death threats. It might also stop very young children having Facebook or Twitter accounts when they are inappropriate.
In the pre- internet days, you had to go and buy green ink and then a stamp to get your vitriol to the target ( or the editor of the local newspaper).
the minor cost and the delay between composing and reception contrasts starkly with the effortless, and instant gratification of twitter ( or email)
Sorry but your solution wouldnt work.
People will not pay for things which they are now used to getting for free. So if Twitter started charging even if it was a 2c fee just to prove identity, people would not pay it and would jump ship to the next application that offered free spleen venting.
Such is the way of the modern world...
You're very right, and we've seen plenty examples of this in recent years. Starting off free and monetising later is a hugely risky strategy: you need to have your users seriously materially hooked to pull it off; I guess maybe Facebook have a better chance than most since people often have their "lives" on there and can't easily remove them (sidenote: I find this incredibly sad) but I still wouldn't risk it if I were them.
However, in the current UK climate with the rhetoric of "taming" the WWW stronger than it's ever been, this would be a smart time for a new contender to arise who did this (nominal CC charge to verify ID) from the get-go: no rug-pulling involved. Marry it with some of the other crap Dave, Claire and mums[don'tunderstandthe]net have been baying for lately, e.g. talking a better game on policing user content ("Our call-centre has THREE dedicated rudeness-hunters, madam!") and you could actually be onto a winner. Couldn't do any worse than Google MinusPlus, anyhow.
MumsBook(TM): You read it here first...
"Should women in the public eye be cowed by the trolls, then?"
Consult the relevant law.
...to try and silence powerful women..."
Uh huh.
That's just more propaganda and the usual militant feminist yada yada. Nobody has any axe to grind with powerful women, but we all know that "powerful women" is feminist-speak for "feminist mouthpiece".
Having been personally subjected to "feminist research" that was designed to mislead parliament into silencing any and all pro-fatherhood websites, "monitor" them and potentially have their webmasters charged and jailed for "hatecrimes" and "terrorism"... I have little or no sympathy for these feminist ninnies. It's actually okay to deny freedom of speech to those who don't want it and don't like it - and feminists certainly do want to curtail everyone else's freedom of speech while they remain free to (as the judge said) publish their politically-motivated defamatory lies.
Look "Dude", your freedom of speech does not overrule my freedom to exist without threats - and that applies to women and men. Just because a woman (not a feminist, feminazi , ninny or any other word you choose to use pejoratively to insult women who dares to open their mouth) wants to express an opinion, start a campaign, etc, it does not give anyone a right to threaten them with death, rape or try and identify where they life, etc, etc.
Having been personally subjected to "arseholes" and "sexism" and "groping" and "threats" I don't feel the need to silence men, nor do any women I know. Criminals I think all sane-minded non-paranoid people would quite like to shut up.
Try this little article - from a man, before you complain - about what some men think about Men's Right Activists (because I'd bet you'd count yourself as one) and how not all men agree with them. Some men quite like women.
http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/mens-rights-we-dont-want-them/
Just read the article. Read the discussion, too.
Then re-read the article mentally 'flipping' male / female references. It was quite shocking how sexist it then appeared and I suspect the author and supporters would be up in arms about such a reversed version.
Guess that indicates how used people have become to sexism in one direction being unacceptable but in the other direction being just fine.
These fantasy rapists and actual abusers of women make me reconsider my general prejudice against vigilante death squads. Science fiction authors imagined a future in which victims either criminal or random are hunted and killed for popular entertainment, often with the general public participating to win prize money. That may be going too far, but might be not such a bad thing if petty social media hate-mongers had a reasonable fear that a gang of altruistically angry internet users would track them down, break into their home and beat them to death with brisk ruthless efficiency, immunity from prosecution, and cricket bats. The catch is that lynch mobs very rarely go after people who really should be lynched. (The cricket bat approach technically isn't lynching, but it suffers the same probable drawback.)
Another problem with the cricket motif is that players at international level apparently have a tolerated practice of "sledging", which is an unlimited level of verbal abuse against one another, including racial and sexual. Which is just the sort of thing that ought to be stopped. Oh, well.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your twitters are seriously no fricking concern of mine. At all.
What will various crusaders play up the next time? Racial insensitivity? Sexual innuendo? Let me ask you, have you been potentially insensitive to any sort of minority recently? Furries? Bronies? Beliebers? Kim Kardashian? You heartless fiend.
Wont someone please think of the children?!
We used to snicker at the Great Firewall of China, and here we are, building our own.
I agree that people have a right to be free of on-line threats, but that right can be waived - by word or deed. It is perfectly acceptable to threaten right back, if someone threatens first. It may or may not be tactically prudent, but there is certainly nothing immoral or "rights violating" about it.
Given the venomous threats of censorship, violence, jail, legal harassment and all the rest that feminists use towards anyone who disagrees with them, it is difficult to take seriously their complaints when they get a bit of their own bitter medicine in return.
I quite like women, actually. Feminists - Not so much.
Is there anything wrong with advocating on behalf of fathers who are ejected from their children's lives without just cause? According to government-funded militant feminists, there is something terribly wrong with that and anyone who does it is a criminal of some sort who needs to be monitored, and jailed for terrorism and hatecrimes.
Nobody should be surprised by on-line criticism of militant feminists because militant feminists invite such behaviour by first indulging in it themselves. Besides, it's just internet blather that can be safely ignored - like I do when I receive similar such threats from militant feminists.