Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 86 total)
  • 18 weeks in Jail for trolling..
  • 5lab
    Full Member

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14894576

    seems the forum mods on here are relatively lenient!

    alfabus
    Free Member

    terribly bad taste, but quite possibly a work of abstract genius:

    He also posted a video on YouTube, entitled Tasha the Tank Engine, showing the children’s character Thomas the Tank Engine with Miss MacBryde’s face.

    Dave

    edit: just read in more detail about how she died… even worse taste than I had originally thought.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    You can’t deny we do black humour better than most in this country though.

    MSP
    Full Member

    Goes way beyond bad taste, I don’t know exactly what law they used to bang him up, if its under some “electronics communications” act then I haven’t heard about it, but it seems quite a fair sentence to pass in this case.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    Guy needs psychiatric help rather than locking up – seriously twisted individual…..

    Gee-Jay
    Free Member

    We were chatting about this in the office, since when did trolling become illegal. Tasteless – yes, an abhorent thing to do – yes but did he actually break a law?

    RealMan
    Free Member

    Sounds like a right c**t, but is it much different from the stuff some comedians do?

    GlitterGary
    Free Member

    It should surely mean a life sentence for some if the Big Hitters ™ on here. 😆

    crankboy
    Free Member

    here you go MSP
    Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1
    (This is the wording of this section as amended by Section 43 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. It applies to offences committed from the 11th May 2001 onwards)
    (1) Any person who sends to another person
    (a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys
    (i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive
    (ii) a threat or
    (iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender or
    (b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
    is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

    (2) A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows
    (a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds and
    (b) that he believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

    (2A) In this section ‘electronic communication’ includes _
    (a) any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system(within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c12)); and
    (b) any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.

    (3) In this section references to sending include references to delivering or transmitting and to causing to be sent, delivered or transmitted and ‘sender’ shall be construed accordingly.

    (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

    RobHilton
    Free Member

    Maybe there is a law against being an arsehole after all?

    yunki
    Free Member

    A friends teenaged son committed suicide by throwing himself under a train..

    Whilst at the funeral service I hastily reminded another friend to turn his mobile off when I remembered his ring tone was the Thomas the Tank Engine theme tune..

    It was lucky that I did as he had actually forgotten to do it.. 😕

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    The classic troll, IMO..
    Clicky linky…
    Contains rude words.

    phil.w
    Free Member

    Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1

    (1) Any person who sends to another person
    (a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys
    (i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive
    (ii) a threat or
    (iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender

    That covers every thread on here! 😯

    snaps
    Free Member

    CFH – the original version of MLP troll is much longer than that, I’ll see if I can find it.

    brakes
    Free Member

    *opens thread hoping it’s about FredBra*
    🙁

    PeterPoddy
    Free Member

    Goes way beyond bad taste, I don’t know exactly what law they used to bang him up, if its under some “electronics communications” act then I haven’t heard about it, but it seems quite a fair sentence to pass in this case.

    Indeed. What a nasty peice of work.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    so in English, you can get busted for:

    “Sending an email which conveys information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender”. Or by extrapolatino, if you post a lie on a thread, you’ve undertaken a criminal act? Whats the test?

    what a crock of poo. Why wasnt there an outcry when this law was written?

    EDIT> Aha phil.w, you missed off the important bit: “with intent to cause distress or anxiety.”

    DezB
    Free Member

    Jeez, Mr Duffy sure knows how to have a laugh. Shame he’s banned or I would’ve added him as a FB friend.
    Strange how he also actually looks like a troll. Maybe that’s what gave him away.

    Houns
    Full Member

    chuckle

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    yes but did he actually break a law?

    the convicted in court bit was a clue for me.

    DezB
    Free Member

    I wonder how he would have got his kicks without the internet?

    PeterPoddy
    Free Member

    I wonder how he would have got his kicks without the internet?

    Nicking dinner money and punching the geeky kids like most bullies, I suspect.

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    Unbelievable.

    deluded
    Free Member

    There’s tw*tish trolling (some of it amusing) and then there’s highly offensive behavior committed by unpleasant inadequates like Mr Duffy – that clearly engage S1 of the above act. The vast majority of people can distinguish the two apart despite the murky cross-over I would suggest.

    Despite a lot of the balls that gets batted about on STW I’ve never seen anything that I would deem a Malicious Communication per se – but it’s food for thought, particularly for those that think anonymous internet forums or social networking sites are not ‘real life’ and as such they can’t be held to account for their submissions – something Mr Duffy may ponder over the coming weeks.

    It would be interesting to know what a MOD’s view is on this?

    BigButSlimmerBloke
    Free Member

    “Sending an email which conveys information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender”.

    There is a God

    See you all in 6 monthd

    geordiemick00
    Free Member

    I think he used some sort of ‘diminished responsibility’ trump card too, as in he suffers from Aspergers syndrome. Thankfully the judge gave him maximum sentence available to him but this case proves that it’s all too easy for cyber bullies to be effective in causing distress.

    He would have got the same sentence for handling a bottle of water stolen by a looter in Aldi 🙄

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    Despite a lot of the balls that gets batted about on STW I’ve never seen anything that I would deem a Malicious Communication per se

    Did you miss the thread that got closed last night then ❓

    😆

    philconsequence
    Free Member

    i woke up to find the thread closed, then deleted… probably sensible choice by the mods otherwise i might have been taken to court by my housemate 😉

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    REALLY PHILLY?

    philconsequence
    Free Member

    careful now deadly, i’m known for my shouty persona on here you know 😆

    yossarian
    Free Member

    Has anyone got a bottom bracket I could borrow?

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    Yes, but if you’re not publicly appreciative of it, I’ll be QUITE SHOUTY ON INTERNET FORUMz 😛

    Coyote
    Free Member

    What a sad, nasty, pathetic little man he is.

    philconsequence
    Free Member

    😆

    didnt mind that he was dismissive of the offer, just perplexed how he could say such nasty things about me with the the caveat that he had met me in real life, when our real life meeting consisted of the situation as described lol.

    i’m used to people being dismissive of kindness and help in my job, its all cool 8)

    there’s a couple of very popular groups on facebook with people who regularly partake in the same kinda stuff as the guy who was sent dahhhn, recently they’ve been posting on the ‘RIP mark duggan’ groups 🙁 all very destructive and the only reason is to upset people for cheap laughs. somebody made a good point above about it not being far off what a lot of modern comedians do though!

    now the details of the law have been posted on STW will we see certain forum members dragging it up the moment someone disagrees with them on a thread?

    Frankenstein
    Free Member

    He posted and paid the price of being a prat.

    Sounds like the trolls of STW.

    richmtb
    Full Member

    Flame me if you like but I’m not sure I agree with this.

    What he did was despicable but I can’t see how its a criminal act. Whatever happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

    And yes he has caused the family distress but it shoud be a civil matter of slander or defamation of character. Putting people in jail for being dickheads onine seems like a very sippery slope

    razor1548
    Free Member

    To me this is the most frightening thing to have happened in the UK in my lifetime. It’s official… we do not have freedom of speech and you better be very careful what you say on the internet. The guy who has been jailed here seems to be a cock (is it safe for me to insult anyone anymore?) but he harmed no one and jailing someone for being a dick and trolling a message board belongs in China or Iran and not in a supposedly free country.

    There have been cases of bullying around schools where people KNOW the other people and this can be dangerous and I think it’s right to put a stop to it, but this is not the same in my eyes. Am I in danger of being jailed for saying that I thought Amy Wino was a waste of space and the world is no worse off without her, or that Diana Spencer was a bigger waste of national resources than the Olympics and she was actually very harmful to the security of nations through her ignorantly sticking her nose in where it didn’t belong?

    Apparently having an opinion that strongly opposes the popular masses is an illegal act now; bet you won’t see many arrests based on Imams in London Mosques preaching the downfall and utter destruction of Western civilized nations any time soon though.

    yossarian
    Free Member

    Apparently having an opinion that strongly opposes the popular masses is an illegal act now; bet you won’t see many arrests based on Imams in London Mosques preaching the downfall and utter destruction of Western civilized nations any time soon though.

    I was wondering when our first closet racist would turn up.

    Excellent, have a banana

    Jamesy
    Free Member

    +1 coyote

    he was out of order with you Phil , couldn’t believe what I was reading, kinda ruins the forum for me people like that .

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    That wasn’t racist at all, yossarian. Muslims are not a race.

    😉

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 86 total)

The topic ‘18 weeks in Jail for trolling..’ is closed to new replies.