Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

JUST SWITCH IT OFF!Get the children OFF the internet.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

That will not fit in with those who want to control the internet for everyone in line with there narrative. It's similar to "Do as i say not how you want"

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

That's an oversimplification because it's a totally different ball game these days.

Children regard social media as essential and will not come off it. It would also mean that they were socially alienated and out of the loop.

In addition, saying that people should come off it means that the trolls will have succeeded in their aim.

If someone were to constantly threaten/insult you IRL everytime you walked past their house, the solution would be to have them dealt with rather than tell the recipient to wear ear plugs or take another route.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I think an awful lot of people will be upset if this legislation led to the closure of discussion groups altogether because everyone became scared of saying anything. The people behind the legislation may mean well, but the impact of this will be devastating.

I think the message may at last be getting through and I’m picking up hints that it may be ditched or completely reviewed by the new PM.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Which "new PM", and what "hints", please?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The problem is, the solution for that scenario is exactly the one you dismiss.

Now, if they jumped over the fence and punched you, then they should be dealt with.

But if they’re just shouting obscenities you can ignore it. Depending on what is being shouted, and at what time. There are already laws in place that can be used to deal with it.

Much the same as with this legislation, there are already laws in existence that can deal with much of it.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Ear plugs and different routes would both be perfectly valid solutions.
What you are suggesting (with this act) is cut off their legs so they cant walk past the house.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

There is and this legislation will remain in place as a last resort, but this new legislation would, amongst other things, make things much easier to deal with, particularly for those without legal advice and assistance because they are unable to afford it.

---------- Post added at 04:02 ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 ----------

People behaving in an inappropriate manner should be dealt with. The victim should not be expected to put up with it, let alone be required to take any steps to mitigate the behaviour.

Your solution would, for example, mean that the perpetrator of the homophobic language that Maggys daughter has had to endure (if it were to take place on the unternet) to face no action and continue to do it.

---------- Post added at 04:22 ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 ----------

Theres not a chance that this will happen for the reasons i've already outlined. In fact, with the advent of the Metaverse, chat rooms, social media, forums etc are likely to be replaced by it and usage of the internet is expected to rise, with most young people spending a huge proportion of their lives online.

Sadly, trolling, sexual abuse, paedophilic activity etc is already rearing it's ugly head on the Metaverse, so legislation is required to keep people safe.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Ofcom have produced some podcasts that aim to educate people about online trolling:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre...a-woman-online

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

No reason to allow parents to abdicate their responsibilities.I didn't as a parent and teacher.Constantly cutting back on other people's freedoms to express themselves just means that they will find newer and more underhand means to allow their viewpoint out into the world.Better to keep them under observation than hiding away from view.Stop thinking you can nanny the universe.

---------- Post added at 08:26 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------

I already know all that.I'm a woman on the internet and I'm more than capable of dealing with all that.I DON'T need protecting.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Here are a few, readily available on the internet.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...otect-27478083

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/ne...te-become-law/

https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/13/onlin...axed-16996243/

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

It's not all about you though, is it? Many people, women included, have been upset to the point of suicide. It cannot continue.

The shenanigans in Parliament may mean that this forthcoming legislation is delayed or amended, but I do not think for a moment that things will be allowed to carry on as they are.

Things change, older people lose touch as their experience & ideas become outdated and are replaced by younger people with modern ideas as a solution to modern problems.

At one time we were the leaders of change and older people were irritated by us, now younger people are doing it to us and we often don't like it.

You can be sure that the people driving forward the changes of today will experience the same thing in years to come.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The problem is, Richard, we are lurching from one extreme to the other. You cannot solve every problem with legislation.

If the Bill was trimmed back to dealing with extreme illegal porn on the internet and suchlike, most people would support that.

The Bill as currently drafted goes much too far and curtails free speech. It is veering dangerously close to the ‘cancel culture’ that is developing and insidiously closing down debate in our universities and ruining careers of those in our entertainment industry.

I am surprised you cannot see that.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

It's not all about you either.Your viewpoint is no more valid than the next person.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Only one of the candidates to be the new PM, not the new PM…

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

In the greater scheme of things, neither of our viewpoints matter any more. What happens now will ultimately be decided by those we have elected to make such decisions on our behalf.

You should have made your feelings known at the time they were asked for like everybody else did during the consultation period.

This is an important piece of legislation, yet all you were concerned with was trying to get this discussion about it closed down
.
How ironic.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Could you point out to me where Maggy has tried to close this discussion down because no matter how often I reread her post do I get that impression.

However I do get the impression, throughout the thread, that you seem to consider your opinions to be more relevant than anyone else who has a different view point.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The best bit about the delay is how much it has peed off the ghastly dorries creature.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

No I just consider his view point invalid.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

You said earlier that my viewpoint was as equal as anybody else's, which of course is true.

---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

Read earlier in the thread, not just the last few posts..

To make it clear for you, I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter.

---------- Post added at 19:03 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

Yes, this is one advantage :D

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Amazing how so many people have said that very thing many times in the past. Still I’m sure we’re all just imagining it and we’re wrong.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

In responce to your reply above to Maggy's post I have to say that all viewpoints are equal is not the same as claiming those points have to be accepted as all being valid.

I have read all 1721 posts, and I stand by my point of view concerning a large number of the posts made by you.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Do you have anything to contribute to the actual debate?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I voiced my reservations during the official consutation stage.

I do not feel the need to enter into any discussion on the forum or to be the target for people such as yourself who can not accept that other people may have justifiable reservations as to the harm, and subsequent consequences, that this proposed legislation may well have in the futue.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

As previously explained, I do not have a problem with anyone who has views that differ from my own. This is a complex piece of legislation and, to an extent, controversial. It is of no surprise that views differ.

If you do not wish to discuss the salient points of the discussion, it does rather appear that you are here to simply try and stir things up for those who do from the sidelines.

I am pleased that you took the opportunity to contribute towards the consultation at the appropriate time.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

But the problem with this new law is people will not be able to give their opinion on certain things if it goes against what is considered acceptable by a majority or if someone claims it's offensive. Or it will be deleted by a mod in case their site falls foul of this new potential law.

So people will not be able to give their honest opinion on many things. Something you think everyone should be entitled too.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Nothing will change for the vast majority of people who use the internet appropriately and responsibly. They will still be able to express their views in a respectful and considered manner.

Those who like to use the Internet to try and make life uncomfortable for, say, minority groups with the use of inappropriate and offensive language/attitudes, groom children for sexual gratification, scam people out of their hard earned savings etc are the only ones who will be affected.

Last Saturday on Talk TV, someone actually complained that this legislation would mean that people "would have to think about it before they said something"!!!

For the record, i've never seen any of your posts that would breach the new law.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

And it's arrogant statements like that you'll find winds people up, but fortunately apart from maybe in your own world you won't be doing any moderating or deciding on the appropriateness of otherwise of posts.

Also I don't think the sense of glee that's been coming across in your recent posts is doing much to endear you to others - you know the continued 'you had your chance to comment so tough luck you didn't' type posts.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

As you are aware, I have cognitive issues and do acknowledge that this can affect my thinking and the way that I express myself.

As a result, I have had my posts independently checked by a facilitator for the allegations that you have made and have been reassured that they have no basis in fact, apart from the statement that I am not a moderator on this forum, which has never been claimed in the first place.

It is correct to say that people did have the chance to contribute towards the consultation at the appropriate time and that I alerted people to this in the thread.

At least one person did contribute to the consultation. I am pleased that they did as it was important that as wide a spectrum of views were taken into account.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

These laws are so open to interpretation that what seems harmless to one person, another can claim it is offensive.

For instance I made a post recently where I complained about almost every new tv series and movie being woke and gave examples, such as shoe-horning in the fact the main character (ignoring the fact she shouldn't have been the main character of the movie...) had two mothers rather than the traditional family makeup. I might have gone on to say something about Stranger things getting in a Lesbian crush in for their wokeness in the first episode of the new series.

While my issue is not with these things directly, but the forced nature of it in almost every bit of new media released, I am sure someone would take offence and say that I am homophobic or that it is hate speech.

Some people will think twice about offering such an opinion if they think they are going to get in trouble for it, which is the chilling effect we are talking about. Some forums will choose to moderate innocent opinions rather than have to worry about a potential law suit because they are not sure if it falls foul of any new vague law.

Just a simple example where your opinion on what is said might differ from what someone else might think. Remember, some people are professionals at being upset on other peoples behalves too.

I'm sure mods/admins here would have their own opinion if I have done something that breaks any laws...but sometimes moderation is not the best choice.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

You make a very good point, i'll respond properly in a bit (this heat is really affecting me).

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I know what you mean, this could possibly come under the 'Legal, but harmful' provisions of the bill.

I am on a forum where a member fell foul of something similar because the forum now prohibits posts that criticise any efforts to combat racism.

They said something in the same vein along the lines that, as every TV programme rushes to virtue signal how inclusive they are, where there were no black people involved, they are now stuffing them full of them to the point of it being unnatural in dramas or black people being over represented on panel shows.

He went on to say that they have gone from one unrealistic scenario to another.

I remember the writer of Midsummer Murders responded to claims of a lack of diversity because there were no people of colour in the drama retorted that, in the place where it is set, in real life there wouldn't be any people of colour living there.

I'd like to think that common sense would prevail in the process which, as I understand it at this point, is for people to report posts in the usual manner peculiar to the relevant website. If the complainant is not happy with the outcome, they can escalate it to the site owner or their formal representative. If they remain dissatisfied, they can then escalate their complaint to Ofcom who can uphold the complaint partially or in full or dismiss it and order the website to carry out any action that they require. If they don't comply, negative sanctions come in to play, including the closure of the website, fines, imprisonment etc.

Website owners will also be required to take steps to prevent inappropriate material appearing in the first place, I assume that this means by the use of software*, banning known offenders etc.

*Facebook already have software in place, but as its software, it cannot distinguish between someone posting 'I'll kill you' for a friend posting a photograph of them when they were younger or a serious threat to kill, so they have taken on a lot more human moderators.

I don't believe that the complaint has to directly concern the complainant, it is enough for them to find the comments offensive, either to themselves or anyone else.

The police can be brought in at any time, but it's envisaged that this will only be done in the most serious of cases.

Existing legislation for things like libel, harrassment, discrimination etc will still be available through the judicial system.

I haven't seen any mention of any appeals process for website owners, moderators etc who disagree with any decision or decision to punish them, but I would assume and hope that there will be.

One of the contenders to be the next Prime Minister, Kemi Badenoch, who had concerns about the legal, but harmful provisions of the bill has just been ousted from the contest, but this does show that elected representatives are, quite rightly, examining the bill and raising any concern that they have and it will, of course, have to pass through the House of Lords for consideration too.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

:tu:

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I suspect that this Bill will be dead in the water when the next PM is appointed.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...ands-f066vxtm8

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Has anyone heard what/if Rishi Sunak has had to say about it?

These are the remaining two people that Tory party members will be voting for to be the next PM.

It was heartbreaking to see this broken man on television today after it's believed that his daughter committed suicide after being bullied online.

The representative from the NSPCC said that the Online Safety Bill would speed up the requirement of websites to hand over details of offenders:

This report is a little confusing as Dermot O'Leary said at the beginning that websites aren't currently required to hand over details, but they are, it's just that the process can be long and drawn out as websites are more concerned about their reputation than dealing with bullies/trolls.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mir...o-27528819.amp

---------- Post added 21-07-2022 at 00:54 ---------- Previous post was 20-07-2022 at 23:22 ----------

The final feature on today's Woman's Hour was about internet equality. It was said that women are twenty seven times more likely to be harassed online and that this is much worse for black women.

It was also said that for any woman in the public eye who is online, it is now inevitable that they will receive abuse. In particular, this is a threat to political democracy and participation; websites must do more to improve the safety of women online. More equality is needed in the technology sector for women of colour and from the LBGT community so that they are put into positions of power and influence:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0019b8k

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Good grief, and you/they wonder why abuse happens.

Postions of power (or any position) should be given based on ABILITY, not if they are a woman, black, or lesbian.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

There is never any excuse for abuse.

I do agree that people should get jobs on merit, but I think that the idea is that, where people are of equal merit, then underrepresented groups should be prioritised.

The rationale is that non disabled, white, straight men have had the upper hand for a long time, so it's time to give those that have traditionally been oppressed a chance. Doing so should also assist in creating a fairer society in the longer term.

The contributor to the programme appeared to be saying that, having more women with power and influence (coupled with training) should in theory end up with tech companies taking issues faced by women being taken more seriously and acted upon to decrease the online abuse that women face.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

No they shouldn't. They should get it based on who you think will be better.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I don't see how this can be said to be an equality measure. It's not. It's preferential treatment, and that is not acceptable.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

:tu: This woman agrees.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Totally agree - but measures have to be in place to minimise/mitigate unconscious bias (as I’m sure you know, being ex-HR).

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

That's how the Conservative Party works and I've not seen you criticising it there.https://framexec.com/on-politics-and...gotten-legacy/

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Those measures must relate to the prevention of discrimination, not treating those people as if they were the master race, giving them preference above everyone else. That is what causes resentment.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 ----------

I don’t recall anyone on this forum creating a list of all the things they would criticise.

For the record, I believe ability should be recognised and optimised. and unlawful discrimination should always be called out.

I do not believe in positive discrimination but I believe everyone should be given equal opportunities in line with their capabilities and experience.

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 ----------

Fair enough, I should have said that the Bill will not go ahead in its present form. Clearly, we still need to deal with the other issues it covers such as child porn.

Note that Truss is concerned with the freedom of speech, as we are.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Speaking of unconcious bias... :erm:

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Well I knew what he meant, and I'm sure everyone else too, as you can't help yourself it's that kind of nit picking that is the causes of all this.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Unless you go to your local dungeon and pay Mistress Diabolic for it.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

:shocked:Well you would know :)

In fact thinking about it under the new regulation someone might find my post offensive on your behalf and report me to the offense overloads :p:

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Unconscious bias is another white elephant.

I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but bias exists across all race, sex, age, class, looks. Etc you name it.

To look at it at a base level, if you were male and recruiting for a position and two equally qualified women applied. One looked like Beyoncé and one was a fat ginger girl from Rotherham I’m pretty sure I know which way your unconscious bias would lean. You could swap old ginger, for bald, short fat bloke = same result.

It isn’t just black people and woman that are victims, everyone is and I would argue older people are the most.

Everybody has bias, that’s just the way it is.

Positive discrimination, quotas, etc is just discrimination and it always seems to go just one way.

We recently just had Women in Engineering day. A big fan fair to get more women in engineering as they are under-represented. No problem with that. But firms like VM are pursuing 50/50 representation in their engineering base. Which is unrealistic and not good for the business as they’re not getting the best engineers.

But where is the men in nursing day, men in primary teaching day, men in caring day?

We should do more to encourage everyone to pursue the paths they want, but do you think the reason there aren’t many women engineers is because they don’t want to do it?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Don’t be ridiculous, Hugh.Is there nothing you won’t argue about?

‘Those people ‘ were those that were mentioned. Obviously.

This kind of pedantry is what many of us are concerned about with this legislation. Disrupters will be able to pick up and complain about anything.

Thanks for making the point for me, though. :D

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Psychologists urge the Government to make class a protected characteristic under the Equality Act:

https://www.newstatesman.com/society...bery-be-banned

If successful, terms such as Toff, Chav etc would no longer be permitted.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Oh just f…. Off.

I am tempted just to leave it at that…..actually, I will.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Right, the world is perfect, we all get along, sitting by the lake, in the warm sunshine, singing Kum-ba-ya every evening. I'm sure you live in your own little fantasy world.

You dont seem to know what to believe, since you contradict yourself here.
Prioritising "underrepresented groups" (whatever that means) is the opposite of merit, its called bias.

The rationale is complete nonsense.
Creating resentment and disharmony is not going to lead to "a fairer society in the longer term", it will lead to trouble (and already does).

Thats nothing more than guesswork (and as stated, theory) you could just equally state that (in theory) if women stayed at home, and did everything they were told, there would be a decrease in abuse. (You may not agree with it, but you cannot prove or disprove it any more than the previous theory).


It just goes to show, the lunatics are still trying to run the asylum - I suppose it wins stupid idea of the week.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

My God, it gets worse. How many ‘protected characteristics’ do you want? This is the work of the madhouse.

Just give everyone the same right. To be treated fairly and with respect. Nothing more needed.

I am tempted to say that many vulnerable people will get very confused by having too many special characteristics. Some not so vulnerable people will be confused also.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I think that what she's saying is that if, say, two candidates are shortlisted for a job in a tech firm are of equal merit, consideration of merit can then be taken out of the equation.

If one candidate is male and one is female, especially if they are a person of colour or are a lesbian, then they should be picked if these groups are underepresented in the company, as their input/influence should lead to tech firms taking a different approach/attitude towards treatment of the aforementioned minority groups to improve the treatment and consideration of them by the company.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Complete and utter nonsense, in fact, dangerously wrong.
The fact you actually believe this utter stupidity is worrying.

You preach about equality, and then suggest the exact opposite.

You pick the candidate best suited to the job.
Its irrelevnt if one is male/female/whatever or black/brown/white/whatever.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The point of unconscious bias is exactly the point you make - we all have preferences, and like hires like, be that in teaching, IT, caring, etc.

To (try and) mitigate those preferences, it’s important to reduce the impact of those unconscious biases - remove identifying info from CVs, so people get to the next stage on the info on their CV, not by their names/sex/ethnicity. Then have diverse interview panels - if the interview panel for nursery teachers is made up of all women, they are likely to hire more of the same (just like in IT/engineering if it’s all men).

It’s not about positive discrimination, it’s about trying to create a level playing field…

Re the over-representation of one sex in certain professions, I actually had that conversation with a previous boss (a University Vice-Chancellor, female), who commented on the overwhelming preponderance of men in our IT Department - I agreed with her, and explained the actions we were taking to balance this (as above), but pointed out that perhaps the same issue should be looked at in Libraries (University), as their staffing levels were equally misbalanced with women…

---------- Post added at 00:09 ---------- Previous post was at 00:07 ----------

You’re not making the point you think you are…

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I haven't indicated my personal thoughts on the matter, I merely reacted to your point about my understanding of what point I think she's trying to get across.

My example was referring to a situation where two remaining candidates are of equal merit. I don't think that she was suggesting that someone that had less merit should be given the job because of ethnicity etc.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:18 ----------

A lot of organisations now purposely don't disclose the names of the candidates, in order to prevent unconscious bias/discrimination by interview panels.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

They shouldn't be given the job because of skin colour, sexuality, or anything if everything is equal (highly doubtful, there is always something that stands out).

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

But that is the case under existing law. This is nothing new.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Which law?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The Equalities Act 2010. As we’ve been saying to you, existing legislation is already adequate.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ecruitment.pdf

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

All this means is that employers are able to use positive action to increase the number of employees from underepresented groups in the total workforce without fear of prosecution for discrimination. There is no requirement for them to this, which I took you to mean.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

This should always be the case but unfortunately has not been reality for years because of quotas and stuff for diversity.

It leads to bizarre things too in media. Ignoring the 50% female quota on panel shows quota that Cohen brought in, meaning instead of comedians they are having random non-funny females who look lost to fit that quota, we also have comedians who can't speak clearly because of say cerebral palsy or not at all like lost-voice guy or whatever his name is.

We wouldn't employ someone with no arms to be a carpenter fitting kitchens because....common sense but that seems to go out the window when it comes to tv and movie. But I don't get why diversity quotas are used to select the no-where near front runner candidate in many jobs. Its plain stupid.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I have never seen hired, or hired, a candidate due to mythical "diversity quotas" - it was always the best person for the job, scored objectively (as far as possible, to a pre-agreed set of questions, so every interviewee was asked and scored in the same things) by a interview panel (usually 3 to 5 people), with scoring reviewed (and justified) after the interviews, and that information stored by HR.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Ditto, but then my days of doing this were many years ago, before many of these insane ideas kicked in.

They were all IT jobs - 5 (over time) as I recall.
In one case, we had about 10/15 applicants, of which only one was female.
She however was very good, and it soon became apparent she knew her stuff.
(unlike some of the others [men] who applied, Im sure some of them barely even knew what a computer was).

I hired her, not because she was a girl, but becasue she was obviously damn good at IT.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

It should not be a requirement. If you have two candidates who equally meet the person specification, you should be able to use other criteria to determine the best fit, such as being able to come up with imaginative alternatives as demonstrated in answer to interview questions, or has practical experience of dealing with circumstances that have proved problematical to the previous incumbents of that position, for example. As long as there is a non-discriminatory reason for the selection, that’s all that should matter.

Positive discrimination requirements forced on people by the state cause resentment, which can lead to bad feelings towards the minority group concerned.

You cannot make people perfect because human beings aren’t perfect. And the more you try to force people to abide by a myriad of rules in the flawed objective of achieving ‘equality’, the less people will want to do the job and the more those who end up doing the job will find ways around them.

The perfect job can become the perfect nightmare when you tie people up with bureaucracy. It’s not on, Richard, and we should not be proceeding down this road.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

But we weren't discussing whether this should be compulsory or not, it was you that insinuated that it was "the law" that meant that this was compulsory.

It's almost as if you're trying to swerve the fact that you misinterpreted what the Equality Act says about the subject.

People's language can be improved over time. When I was a child, the N word was in common usage. After years of societal disapproval and subsequent legislation, I have not heard anyone use the word in a derogatory sense since 1986.

As children grow up, they don't get to hear the word and its usage falls into disuse.

Last time a racially abusive word was used in my company, I found young people looking confused as they'd never heard the term before and had to actually ask what it meant.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------

Because, despite their difficulties communicating due to disability, right thinking people would rather give disabled people a chance to participate in their chosen field as opposed to excluding them from society.

Lost voice guy has indirectly helped the disabled on many levels and was chosen to be the winner of Britain's Got Talent on merit alone.

Would you prefer that he remained on benefits living an unfruitful life?

Don't forget that nobody is immune from disability, in fact most of us will become disabled at some point in our lives and nobody is forcing you to watch any comedian that you don't enjoy.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Not sure that’s the best example of a "quota" since he won the public vote in Britain’s Got Talent 2018…

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

We could argue he won on a limited self-depreciation act which after the obvious shock factor jokes is done, there isn't much else left.

He doesn't have to be excluded from society or working if he is not a comedian. If my dream was to be a bikini clad model and influencer, people would right tell me where to poke it as I don't have the body for that. No matter how much I tell them its my dream.

Its a nice story that he became successful but not many people really want to listen to a speak and spell tell jokes slowly.

If I lost the use of my legs tomorrow, I wouldn't insist on being a football player and expect some team to put me on their team virtue signal some quota. We don't do it. Tv and film does.

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 21:58 ----------

You may not but many companies do. I know for certain that two companies I have worked for with a large amount of employees do so.

I'm not sure if its still the case but there was some tax relief of help towards wages for companies that employed disabled people.

I know of someone training to be a firefighter and despite not doing well on some of the training, is going to get one of the places based on the fact she is female. Something she was told by someone higher up and it was related to females being under-represented in the field.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Lost Voice Guy won because he was and is funny.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I'm not saying he wasn't. My point there was what made him funny was the jokes about his disability and he probably used the best ones of the limited supply he can have on those.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Couldn't agree more with the bit in bold. It's just a shame you can't see the same approach works with all the online content you want to be able to complain about and ultimately get censored.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

You may be confusing ‘targets’ with ‘quotas’…

I have worked at (and been a hiring manager) at a Cable Company, a very large Retail/Customer Services business, a Mobile Phone company, a £3 billion t/o Financial Services company, three Universities, and a major Utility company - none of those had quotas, only targets. What some of them did do was guarantee an interview if the disabled person met the initial selection criteria* (they would be added to the interview list, not replace someone).

The tax relief was to help the companies buy equipment to support disabled employees.

*some companies also do this for ex-Military

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I didn't misinterpret anything, old chap. I was trying to convey to you that this amount of positive discrimination was permitted by the Equality Act. I did not state that positive discrimination was a legal requirement.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

"Positive Action", not discrimination, and only where the candidates are of equal merit and it is a proportionate way of addressing the under-representation or disadvantage…

Positive Action does not allow an employer to appoint a less suitable candidate just because that candidate has a protected characteristic that is under-represented or disadvantaged (that would be discrimination).

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Quite.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Indeed, so anyone afraid of losing out on a job to someone less capable from a protected group can sleep more easily.

---------- Post added at 18:09 ---------- Previous post was at 18:02 ----------

This may or may not be true and his act may or may not soon became stale.

What i'm concerned about is the fact that you were saying that disabled comedians shouldn't be on TV and derogatorily referred to his communication tool as a child's device.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Well the less time Rosie Jones spends on TV the better. Can't stand the woman.... Is that bad of me?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

WRONG!!

Sorry, Richard, you are simply not getting it. Generally, person spscifications have 'essential requirements' and 'desirable requiremsnts' but decisions are made on the essential requirements. The change you want in the law would oblige employers to take on an applicant from a minority group who was still a less suitable candidate, because this law wouldn't allow for the best appointment.

The law should be left as it is. It already serves its purpose.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Why are you concerned? Its an opinion and free speech lets me give my opinion within the boundaries of what say this site allows.

You have actually misconstrued what I said. I have not said disabled people should not be on TV. My suggestion is that it is stupid for someone to have a prominent speaking role job when they can't speak or its very hard for people to understand them. It is better for someone like that to have a role on tv where they talk less.

You seem to be think its ok for a disabled person to joke but if someone on a forum makes a joke about a speak and spell its derogatory? I feel concerned that are discriminating against me due to my able-bodied'ness...

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

Apparently she is not well liked by people outside of TV too.

But, is it because you can't understand her making it hard to watch/listen to her (which would kind of prove one of my points) or because you just don't like her?

Some of the stuff she has done off the telly is despicable

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The TV industry should concern itself with programmes and actors or presenters who can command big audiences. Whether or not they have disabilities, surely, is irrelevant.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

And not use diversity quotas like they do and have been doing for a long time...

Brings me back to the way they damaged Have I got News for you and similar programs with the female quota for each episode.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

I haven't advocated any change in this particular area.

---------- Post added at 03:15 ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 ----------

If you can't stand her as a person or don't care for her as a comedian, that's not wrong. If your dislike of her is in any way related to her disability, then that would be discriminatory.

---------- Post added at 03:23 ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 ----------

If someone in a minority group wishes to make a joke at their own expense (this can often break down barriers and put people at ease), that's up to them. Others should be wary of doing so though as it could be construed that they are mocking them with snide comments and cause great offence and may actually get you into trouble in certain situations.

I think it's a case of meeting people half way. If someone with a speaking issue is impossible to understand on stage, it would simply be impractical. If they can be understood with a little patience and empathetic understanding, the kind thing to do eould be to make the effort and take it in one's stride.

---------- Post added at 03:29 ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 ----------

I agree with reservations. TV isn't just for the masses, it's also for minorities, which is where the PSB ethos kicks in.

There's a TV programme for hearing impaired people called See Hear and a radio programme called In Touch for the sight impaired. Neither command huge audiences, but are invaluable to the people that they serve.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Depends on the context. Is it really wrong that I can't stand listening to her voice, too shouty and too slow which makes it really annoying for me. She's not funny either, because she's too slow to tell a joke as you get the punchline before she's able to say it. As a person, I don't know her. As a comedian, she's not funny. It's not like I'm against her or complain as I have a choice to watch her or turn over the channel.

Is it right that half the channels on Virgin Media do not carry subtitles? Is that acceptable or down right discriminating for people that are deaf?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

This reminds me of an incident a few years back where I was removed as the ring announcer from a pro wrestling promotion I’d worked for for a while.

I know pro wrestling is a performance. So do you. It isn’t fake as the moves/bumps are real and can cause injury so I’d called it “predetermined”.

Without breaking kayfabe (Google it) too much, most moves require cooperation from both wrestlers but if they’re good and professional enough you are unlikely to immediately spot it.

This promotion I worked for also held wrestling training classes and one time they were proud to tell the world how they had a teenage trainee with cerebral palsy whose “dream was to be a professional wrestler” and they would help him realise his “dream”.

I was absolutely sick at hearing this.

I’m not against disadvantaged people given help to realise their dreams in general, in fact I think it’s a great thing.

The very basis of pro wrestling is it’s meant to portray a legitimate physical fight and that the guys (or women) taking part are legitimately intimidating and would likely kick your behind if you got on the wrong side of them in the street.

Any deviation from this basis makes it harder to suspend your disbelief in wrestling and makes even more of a mockery of it. I don’t know the cerebral palsy kid but with the best will in the world, he was not going to look reasonably intimidating in a “fight”.

Anyway the promotion (which also has a number of transgender wrestlers on its general roster, good on them for that) made a big thing about training this kid, I commented on the FB post saying it would make the wrestling business even harder to take seriously (I’m a Jim Cornette guy, for those who catch my drift) and within a few minutes the post was removed, an hour later the promoter called me to say he was no longer going to use me as a ring announcer or referee.

I’m not saying physically disabled people should automatically have doors closed to them. But limitations must always be respected.

I don’t know Rosie Jones but if she’s a crap comedian or her limitations affect her ability to communicate humour then I’m not going to enjoy her work.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Ofcom only require channels who can afford it to carry subtitles, their reasoning being that to force the poorer channels the added expense of having to have added assessibility services could make them financially unviable and they could close altogether.

Some do more subtitling than they are required to, like Channel 4 (let's see if this continues after privatisation) and some not required to do them at all do so, like Talkimg Puctures TV.

You're right though, there ought to be a way found so that those with hearing impairments can enjoy television in the same way as everybody else does.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The point is you have a choice about whether to watch her or not watch her.Her choice is that she gets to be heard and seen just like any able bodied comic.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Yeah it’s not a like-for-like analogy. One ‘bad’ comedian is unlikely to damage a person’s whole perception of stand-up.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

You are wrong, and that statement is your basic problem.
You seem to think you can tell people what they are allowed to like now.
Anyone is entitled to dislike someone for any reason whatever, including any "disablity" - I suggest you get a dictionary and look up 'discrimination', you wont find thought control mentioned.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

And, in your world, I suppose that they are entitled to tell the disabled person this and to exclude them?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Paul didn’t say that, Richard.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Funny you mention transgender as that is another clusterfluck in sports. It might not matter so much in pro wrestling but in mixed martial arts for example a transgender woman can have a huge advantage due to muscle mass and the general differences between men and woman.

Its not fair to allow someone who has transitioned and who can potentially do so much more damage to a woman because of this. But some are arguing for it due to inclusivity and the usual arguments. We don't pair up men and women in boxing, martial arts or other sports because of physiology reasons and doing so with someone who has transitioned is not right.

An opinion to some, offensive to others, illegal troll comments if certain laws got through? :P

I have no issue of people transitioning or getting in the body they genuinely feel they should have been born in. Or them doing any job they want, as long as it makes sense, unlike the martial arts stuff. Incidentally, I find the voice of a transitioned guy on tv really jarring. Does stuff like abandoned megastructures and stuff. No matter how much I hear him I can't get used to it. But I don't particularly think he shouldn't do the job. Some womens voice overs on wildlife documentaries are much worse in comparison :P

As for disabled fighters, there was a UFC fighter who was deaf. No massive issues from him except the ref had to keep in mind he couldn't use verbal commands to him. I remember a fighter who was an arm amputee and he was allowed to fight but the obvious happened. As he got better opponents he got battered because of the major disadvantage he had. Not seen him for ages so assume he doesn't fight any more.

This is Rosie Jones on one of the times she is more understandable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKkMZz1Uxgk

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Well I must admit I was no fan of Peter Sutcliffe and that was because his illness made him an evil man, so I suppose the reason I didn't like him was because of his disability. I never met him (unlike my late father in-law who worked with him and didn't like him because "he wasn't normal"), but if I'd been offered the chance I would have declined because I didn't like him. So yes I would have told him and would have excluded him.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

He didn't, that's why i'm asking.

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------

The transgender issue is a very complicated minefield; it's caused lots of arguments, partly for the reasons that you give.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

Sounds like you didn't dislike him because he was disabled, but because of the terrible crimes that arose as a result of his disability.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

So you admit that its ok to say to someone that they can't or shouldn't do something because their physical attributes mean its not totally feasible? If so, why should mental attributes not be treated the same?

Or would you pick and choose depending on what particular thing makes them difference from everyone else?

Rather than blanket trying to tell anyone they can do whatever they want even if it makes no sense whatsoever because they should have the right to do so.

Nothing is ever black or white but some want to ignore this when fighting for blanket equality. The fact some want to stop discussion of such topics with laws to censor opinions which might not match theirs is no different from what i said about not wishing to see No voice guy do a comedy show....

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

My world ? LOL. Do you mean the real world ?
You know, that one where everyone doesnt actually like everyone else ?

Exclude them from what ?

Tell them they dont like them ?
Of course they can, why would you think they cant ?
Are you perhaps suggesting everyone should lie now ?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

You said that you think it's ok not to like someone because they're disabled, my question is, if this was the case, would you actually say this to the person and exclude them from anything eg your company, a social activity etc as a result of your dislike of their disability?

There is never any need to actually lie, this is where tact, subtlety, consideration and kindness comes in.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The effects of grooming & sexual assault on a child are devastating for them for the rest of their life and the internet has served to make it even easier for paedophiles & hebophiles to gain access to children to do this.

These testimonies from survivors on a radio programme broadcast earlier today may help anyone who underestimates the effects that grooming & sexual assault has on those targeted at an early age:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0019lgw

This must be dealt with.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Paedophiles and trolls are different things and there are already laws against this and statuary rape charges.

is there something under this new proposed law which is going to make it illegal for adults to speak to kids online? That would be yet another OTT law and nightmare for discussion board operators and potentially exclude kids from boards which could give them education because sites would make them 16 or 18+.....which kids would sign up to anyway and lie about their age