Cable Forum - Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Police to get tough on internet trolls. (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33703445)

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129715)

Can the police keep us safe? is a series on Radio 4. This mornings episode explained that more and more crime is taking place online and that some websites are reluctant to pass on details to the police, which the Online Safety Bill hopes to improve:

I am not a lawyer, so don't quote me on this, but I don't think any site has to give the police any information unless there is a court order or subpoena or something?

Certainly copyright companies and the City of London police have tried to get information from registrars and such with official looking letters when there was actual no authority behind them, with the hope of fooling them in to giving up information voluntary.

So if my assumption is correct, any information giving is voluntary unless there is a legal requirement.

Even so, its only going to catch the low hanging fruit of stalking ex's and stupid people saying stupid things. A professional troll is going to be using a VPN and fake details on every site so unless they slip up somewhere, there is not a lot of information to give.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129715)

some websites are reluctant to pass on details to the police

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129721)

This site is closing down because it actually started to affect the mental health of the owner

Well obviously we dont know the details of some random site, but there are generally options other than shutting down, that seems a little extreme.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36129733)

Why on earth would you join a site that passes on your details at the drop of a hat ?

I wouldn't buy an Amazon ring doorbell as they give access to the police unvetted access to the feed and history without any legal papers needed. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2...y/10067549002/

GCHQ are using the 'think of the children' excuse to try and increase their surveillance by getting software on phones that can see images and text before its sent, bypassing encryption in programs with end to end encryption to protect privacy. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...d-abuse-images

Obviously they will use it for 5 eyes mass surveillance. Its their main goal rather than mission creep. Like all the the stuff they try to do to bypass privacy, it will only ever effect normal people. Internet trolls, pedo's, hackers etc will all be able to bypass anything like this.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36129733)

Of course they are - its called privacy.

We, for example, will not pass on any details of anyone, unless legally required to do so.

Why on earth would you join a site that passes on your details at the drop of a hat ?

---------- Post added at 23:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------

Well obviously we dont know the details of some random site, but there are generally options other than shutting down, that seems a little extreme.

In the programme linked to, they won't even pass on information about terrorists which could save lives.

The reasons behind the sites closure are given here. People need to remember that trolling site owners (and others) many of them unpaid, can lead to mental health issues.

Nobody is above criticism, but when it's relentless and unjustified, it is a form of abusive trolling. This is a well known tactic used by internet bullies & bigots and forms part of my complaint of harrassment to the police:

Quote:

It is with sadness that I must inform you all that TV Live Forum is to close down on Sunday at 12pm UK time.

I created this forum purely to continue the conversation from TV Forum, and I'm proud that I did it. However, I have felt more and more miserable as time has gone on, and my mental health has suffered as a result.

I knew I had big shoes to fill, TV Forum was a great website, and I was proud to be a part of it. I took the responsibility of running this site seriously, and every decision I made was, in my view, the right one. I made a few mistakes, and did things that were unpopular, but at the end of the day, I learned from the experience.

However, sadly, the continuing abuse that I've been receiving from certain people has resulted in my general mental health plummeting to the floor. I took a couple of weeks away from the forum recently to refresh my head, and seek counselling to address my mental health issues. The only way that I'm going to resolve my issues is to cut the forum out of my life, and that is what I intend to do.

The forum will close on August 31st at 6pm. This will give somebody enough time to set up a replacement forum if they so wish. I will support any legitimate effort at creating a new forum. If any new forum wishes to take on the posts and topics from here, they're more than welcome to, however I am willing to keep this site online as an archive.

I want to thank my moderators: David, Ben, Matt and James have been fantastic with keeping the forum going over its short life. I want to thank Pete from Metropol for being a "consultant" on all things forum related. His help has been very useful, and I'm grateful for his support.

Also, a big thank you to every single current member of the site for being a part of the community. I'm desperately sorry that it has had to end so soon, but I know in my heart that I'm doing the right thing.

The main TV Live website will continue, as will my new site On The Telly, and I will be focusing much more on my radio show as well as my work. I'm not going anywhere...

To those of you who have continued to criticise me, I simply want to say this... you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. Because of your words, you are depriving people of a place to discuss television presentation, and robbing me of a site that I've been really proud to work on. Karma is a wonderful thing, and I just hope that one day you look back on what you've said about me and feel really bad about what you've done.

Thank you, and don't forget to switch off your sets...
I'm on Andover Radio every Saturday afternoon from 4pm-6pm.

---------- Post added at 02:35 ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 ----------

The affects of trolling and unnecessarily nasty comments from just as nasty individuals on vulnerable people (and even those that aren't) is discussed in the first feature of this programme.

The Online Safety Bill, which has been five years in the making, is mentioned as an attempt to deal with this:

https://www.itv.com/hub/lorraine/1a9360a3153

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129721)

(which is presumably the aim of such odious people who post such rude/nasty/negative things)

I could well believe that

#WeaponsGradeIrony

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

You CANNOT STOP people from being rude or nasty to one another.
Speaking as an educator I can attest that you can't force people to accept others just because you wish it to be so.

Richard you can't make anyone accept others because it fits your world view that we should do so.The length of this thread should prove to you that you are pushing a big heavy boulder up a very steep mountain and you haven't even got past the first few feet. This forum is NOT the place to do this.You need to move on and find a bigger and better forum.

Okay I've had my say and apart from moderating duties I intend to never post in this thread again. I SUGGEST strongly that anyone else whose got any gumption will also stop posting in this thread IF you have a particular beef with RC.Stop poking the bear in other words and make us mods lives a little easier.
Thank you.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

I think that what needs to be established before stronger sanction is intent. You can never completely stop the ignorant or accidental offence but you should be able to identify and deal with those intending to cause harm or offence.

We also need to take back the definition of tolerate meaning to put up with not to accept. This is not to say you tolerate intentional "attacks" but neither do you simply "instigate proceeding" because you are offended.

I find the usage of "Jesus Christ" as expletive or exclamation to be offensive and should be stopped in the same way that use of other religious names is. We already have mentioned that the use of N has been made unacceptable where once it was more common so you can't use common usage as an excuse.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36129755)

I find the usage of "Jesus Christ" as expletive or exclamation to be offensive and should be stopped in the same way that use of other religious names is

Yeah good luck with that.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36129756)

Yeah good luck with that.

Thing is, if I tell people around me that I find it offensive they should take note of my request.
If you tell folk that you find a certain term or behaviour offensive or it makes you uncomfortable and they ignore that should it be allowed to continue? Maybe at one time people would have said the same about use of the N word.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36129757)

I find if people make certain demands that aren't really practical nor acceptable then they'll just be excluded (or ignored) which is a much easier approach. I'm not saying I'd ignore you as you have right to say what you like. But if you were in my social circle then things would be different.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...38f66aface19cf

Quote:

Liz Truss would continue with the existing Online Safety Bill if she became prime minister, Nadine Dorries, one of her main supporters, has said...

… Dorries also accused the Labour Party of putting thousands of children and vulnerable youngsters in danger by calling a “sinister” and “nonsensical” confidence vote in the prime minister this month.

On Wednesday the NSPCC, Britain’s biggest children’s charity, warned that more than 3,500 children a month would be abused online while the bill is delayed. The debate and vote on the confidence motion meant that the Online Safety Bill ran out of time in the House of Commons, although the government had control of business in the chamber and could have found time elsewhere.

It had only hours to go before it would have passed all of its Commons stages but the confidence vote has delayed it until after the summer recess…

… “I know that cynical, sinister manipulative act pulled by Labour in the last few days has left many parents, grandparents, children’s charities and campaigners across the country bitterly disappointed.”

The culture secretary added: “That was personally a day of agony for me because the Labour Party called a nonsensical no-confidence vote in the prime minister, which meant that that bill is now stalled, which meant that children and vulnerable young people will spend so much longer without the online protections that they need to be in place.”

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1659092686

https://twitter.com/nadinedorries/st...PT4hwADpPDHNrw

Amazing - blatant lying, even though she was present in the House when the Speaker corrected Johnson when he said the same thing.

The VONC that held up the Online Safety Bill was called for by the Government.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129743)

The reasons behind the sites closure are given here.

No, those are reasons to step down, he could have let someone else run the site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129743)

People need to remember that trolling site owners (and others) many of them unpaid, can lead to mental health issues.

The vast majority of site owners are unpaid.
Again, you seem unable to comprehend that the large SM sites are a tiny fraction of overall sites.
The owners [and staff] of this site have have been trolled by many idiots over the years.
We ban them, and move on. We certainly dont need new draconian laws to deal with them.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36129771)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...38f66aface19cf

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1659092686

https://twitter.com/nadinedorries/st...PT4hwADpPDHNrw

Amazing - blatant lying, even though she was present in the House when the Speaker corrected Johnson when he said the same thing.

The VONC that held up the Online Safety Bill was called for by the Government.

A cynical comment. The government went ahead with its own confidence motion as an alternative to Labour’s.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Nonsense comment anyway, as if it is some magical bill that will instantly stop child asbuse. It wont.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36129757)

Thing is, if I tell people around me that I find it offensive they should take note of my request.

Its certainly good manners to keep in minds peoples expressed sensitivities to some things but at the same time some people feel they should not have to change what they say because one person in a room of 20 might get offended by it. Obviously in a church hall those stats can be flipped on their head but otherwise :D

Not to mention some people have said phrases for years and its habit to say it so its not so simple to stop saying something like 'jesus christ' in those similar situations for example. As an example, some people who swear a lot often will swear in front of children by accident even though they don't intend to.

The problem is, pretty much any sentence ever typed, someone somewhere will take offence at it, no matter how benign. If we always restrict stuff based on everyones view on something, social media would be a boring circle jerk bubble of everyone pretending to be the same and others not participating because they feel they cannot express an alternative view.

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:14 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36129776)

The owners [and staff] of this site have have been trolled by many idiots over the years.
We ban them, and move on. We certainly dont need new draconian laws to deal with them.

Banning the people on the site Richard mentioned sounds like what he should have done if this was indeed continued harassment by some members rather than say constructive criticism. but I guess it depends on the site owner how strict they are...

Banning doesn't always work as intended. Sometimes there are better ways to deal with things.

Sometimes site owners and staff troll members themselves....