Cable Forum - Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Peter Andre has throw his support behind the Online Harms Bill after Rebekah Vardy caused him immense distress & humiliation by insinuating that he had a small penis:

https://www.itv.com/hub/loose-women/1a3173a3991

She has since apologised and expressed her regret about saying this.

OLD BOY

30-05-2022 08:29

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36124014)

Some things can't be unsaid. Now the damage has been done. Apologies are worthless, in my view

The funny thing is, as soon as you complain about this sort of thing, you draw attention to it. Better to ignore such remarks. I got called names at school now and again, as I think we all did from time to time, but it didn't destroy my life and send me over the edge.

Sticks and stones, and all that.

Maggy

30-05-2022 08:32

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Ah! The old it's your fault you get called names you don't like because you complained about it too much forcing me to keep calling you names defence.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

papa smurf

30-05-2022 08:36

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36124019)

A fist is worth a thousand words.

OLD BOY

30-05-2022 08:45

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36124022)

A fist is worth a thousand words.

That normally settles the argument. Dealing with women, however, is a different matter.

Hugh	30-05-2022 09:50

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36124019)

Some things can't be unsaid. Now the damage has been done. Apologies are worthless, in my view

The funny thing is, as soon as you complain about this sort of thing, you draw attention to it. Better to ignore such remarks. I got called names at school now and again, as I think we all did from time to time, but it didn't destroy my life and send me over the edge.

Sticks and stones, and all that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36124022)

A fist is worth a thousand words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36124024)

That normally settles the argument. Dealing with women, however, is a different matter.

https://c.tenor.com/rbKg9CWJEWUAAAAC...on-shocked.gif

Maggy

30-05-2022 10:06

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Too much testosterone in this thread.:rolleyes:

Hugh	30-05-2022 10:25

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36124029)

Too much testosterone in this thread.:rolleyes:

Usually all mouth and no trousers… ;)

Pierre

30-05-2022 11:25

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36124014)

He might have?

Hom3r

30-05-2022 12:01

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36124014)

IIRC what's said in court is libel free,

Hugh	30-05-2022 12:07

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36124046)

IIRC what's said in court is libel free,

Only if relevant, or reported contemporaneously…

https://www.carruthers-law.co.uk/art...ute-privilege/

Quote:

Interestingly, it wouldn’t apply if a statement was made in the proceedings which was not relevant to the claim, so for example, if, as in the case of Seaman v Netherclift (1876 (2CPD53). A witness was asked: “Where you at York on a certain day?” The witness replied, “Yes, and AB picked my pocket there.” That would not have the protection of absolute privilege as it was entirely unconnected to the proceedings.

Privilege extends to documents in the proceedings, such as statements, court documents, particulars of claim, defence. However, documents produced in the proceedings which do not have a link with them would not be protected.

Quote:

A fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings heard in public, and which are published contemporaneously with those proceedings, is absolutely privileged, under section 14 of the Defamation Act 1996. Contemporaneous publications would be those that are heard as soon as is practicable, after publication is permitted. For example, if a newspaper is published daily, then it would be contemporaneous if it was published in the next edition. In the same way, if an edition was weekly or monthly, then it would be termed contemporaneous to publish in the next weekly or monthly edition.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:30.

Page 105 of 146

105

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page