BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 01:02 PM

Preferably round the throat of whoever tells him what shit to distribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 12:39 PM

Got a grip, Ake. But yours seems a bit tenuous.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 04:10 AM

Get a grip Don!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 07:57 PM

Beautiful!!

Thank you, Mauvepink, for posting that!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 05:44 PM

Akeneton said: "I don't think there is anyone here who could make a reasonable case "that male to male sexual intercourse is NOT a perversion".....It is obviously a perversion, as males were never designed by god/nature to have sexual intercourse together"

There is no case to make. If God created man and woman he created homsexuality and bisexuality along in that creation. Nature is blind and homosexuality is rife in other non-human animals. It is quite natural. Even the medics have now taken it off the DMS and mental health books. Thus, it is most certainly not a perversion, even when they said it was. You can make a law against natural behaviours - and in some cases for humans, at least, it is morally responsible to do so. It is ethically right that you then care for and not demonise those that step over those boundaries (ie pedophiles as an example).

Now I am going to get called some kind of liberal inept and stupid bint for this by certain 'people', I dare say. But that will not change the fact that the above statement is totally incorrect and that there is no case to answer that homosexuality is a perversion. It is. But only in the minds of those that fear their own thoughts maybe or have some prurient interest in it? Many many homosexual men do not have anal intercourse in any case, making any such statement against homosexuals as fallacious as it is unintelligent.

... anyway. I revisited the thread to post this below and saw the above. The film below is much more enjoyable and raises hope for the futures that hope still exists...

(the link is safe as I have been on the site and checked it myself)

http://community.1sale.com/2013/11/inspiring-a-group-of-boys-rescue-a-boy-being-bullied/

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:42 PM

I'd rather not speculate. I've just eaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:28 PM

Why is it that any thread that Ake manifests himself on almost invariably gets warped into a discussion on the "perversion" of homosexuality?

Why is he so obsessed with the subject?

If he finds it so distasteful, why does he spend so much mental--and obviously, emotional--energy on the matter?

One does tend to speculate. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 02:49 PM

Humble apologies Musket. It was DtG who commented.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:44 AM

Fair point. If you aren't careful it all gets rendered down to the sanitised word coercion.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:34 AM

Yes - Mine. And the difference, as I have already explained, is that witness intimidation is already covered by specific legislation and has severe sentencing. Suggesting that witness intimidation, bullying and disagreements are all the same thing only removes the focus from bullying. In my opinion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,musket ?
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 02:12 AM

Eh?

Did I write about school bullies and witness intimidation? I thought most of my posts were happily bullying the school bigot?

Someone else's opinion I think. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 07:00 PM

"In order to discount that much of the stuff mentioned in the article I posted is bullying, you have to assume that it ALL IS POSTED ONLY BY THOSE with the specific intent to intimidate witnesses for the purpose of affecting legal processes."

Bullies very often have a purpose in bullying, and I'm struggling to see the difference, in Musket's opinion, between the school bully grabbing his victim's dinner money and the criminal stopping a witness testifying.

So even if it IS witness intimidation, is that not bullying for a purpose?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 02:23 AM

A degree of compulsion eh? You'd lick your lips at the prospect wouldn't you?

We'd better bring you in too. After all, we only have your word that you don't have unprotected anal sex with prostitutes.

Come to think about it, we don't have your word.

Best drag you in just in case.   We can get the cleaner or porter to carry out the tests because it would be criminal assault for a doctor or nurse to touch you for clinical reasons without your consent or for emergency purposes where consent isn't possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:50 PM

I think if infection rates continue to worsen a degree of compulsion may be necessary Dave, it would depend if homosexuals were prepared to regulate their own risky behaviour or not.

Soon the costs of lifetime anti viral treatment and associated care costs will become unsustainable..... as well as the tragedy of blighted lives.

I intend to say no more on this subject at present... at Grinska's request, so no more questions will be answered.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 03:16 PM

I know quite a few "medical pen pushers." I have respect for their logistical skills. However, I also have respect for clinical staffs who deal with GU issues. They hear and read the disturbing lies put out by the likes of you and have a sense of despair over how idiots like you can have such a negative effect when they try to engage with hard to reach groups.

Respect is alien to bigots so not worth discussing with you. You appear to be able to spell rates but that's it. It is futile to discuss what you repeatedly show you don't understand. If you know a medical pen pusher called Ian, take it up with him. I'm a retired CEO of a manufacturing concern and in retirement support an NHS trust in transformation and improvement, after a few years of regulating their quality and safety, and chairing health authorities and trusts. If you must say stupid things, at least aim at the correct target.

Back in your hole worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 01:15 PM

male homosexuals should be eager to volunteer to join a register and be tested regularly

That is not what you have said before, Ake. You have said it should be compulsory. How do you explain that?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 12:19 PM

Do you call that any sort of case?
We are discussing infection RATES. Real numbers are meaningless when the size of the demographics are taken into account.

But you knew that very well, didn't you Ian?
I repeat, you are disingenuous....someone in your stated position as a medical pen pusher, should not be spreading misinformation.

I suggested a voluntary register of MSM who could put themselves forward for testing.... and contact tracing if they tested positive.
Hopefully before long it would be seen by practicing homosexuals as social unacceptable NOT to be regularly tested for HIV.
Testing and contact tracing of the demographic most at risk,(70%) of new cases, is the only way in which the epidemic can be brought under control.

One question, how bad must these figures get before something radical needs to be done?

"Also, having unprotected sex whilst not telling your partner you may have an infection is a criminal act, assault, and custodial sentences can follow"(Ian)......That is exactly the point, a very large proportion of the new cases who test positive are entirely unaware of their status and will continue to infect others until their positive status is discovered.

In the interests of the rest of society and their own safety, male homosexuals should be eager to volunteer to join a register and be tested regularly.
The high risks in this particular demographic are patently obvious.

Now, I am about to take Grinska's advice and say no more on the subject for the time being, unless provoked by the "silencers"

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 10:32 AM

I shall be quiet when bigotry has no place on publicly accessible websites such as Mudcat.

He is posting whilst within The UK and as such is obliged to abide by the law. Using Mudcat to propagate hate is subject to scrutiny and his recent comments fall short of legal never mind moral obligations.

Out of interest for our USA based members, he is referring to the increase in infection overall in male on male sex as the possible cause. The Health Protection Agency is concerned that as more gay men come forward than women, the true scale of the issue is not clear. They point out that there are far more infections from unprotected sex between men and women, and data from clinical audit point out that surgical issues from anal sex would be equal for men and women, yet over 90% of presentations at Accident and Emergency or referrals to colo rectal consultants are from women, with the conclusion that more women "receive" anal sex than men. Hence their wish for women to come forward at the same rate gay men do when they feel susceptible to infection.

Add to that surveys by Stonewall, over 30% of men in gay relationships do not participate in penetrative sex. I note that in a recent documentary on a The BBC, Stephen Fry pointed out to a pastor in Uganda who was shouting him down that he had never had penetrative sex, either way, yet has had loving relationships.

The disgusting person behind Akenhateon says that testing all gay people would be some sort of answer. If there is a cure for HIV+ He may have a case for people to come forward but no fear, the queue would be long enough without withholding human rights. I can say from a professional perspective that the clinics are oversubscribed by men who feel they may be vulnerable to infection. The vast majority aren't though, luckily. Also, having unprotected sex whilst not telling your partner you may have an infection is a criminal act, assault, and custodial sentences can follow.

The largest issue in sexually transmitted disease is chlamydia, yet I don't see him wishing all men and women to be forced to be tested. More women receive anal sex than men but I don't see him wishing all women to be forced to be tested.

His insistence that being gay is perverted is all you need to question how or why Mudcat allows hate to be published.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 10:01 AM

Ake, you have made your case perfectly clearly, and far too often. Let the readers decide - quietly, if possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 09:51 AM

Sorry Grishka, that was addressed to the poster above(Ian).

I am giving thought to what you have written and will probably post something later. I would use PM, but that is not possible in your case.
I notice that you have not addressed the infection rates associated with one particular sexual preference demographic, why is that?

If a form of sexual behaviour produces those rates of infection, does that not point to a problem for society?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 09:34 AM

Just make your case, or keep quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 09:22 AM

For the sole reason that I hope to cut the discussion short, I'll comment on Ake's hobby:

1. There is no such thing as a "primary purpose" of natural phenomena.
2. According to the currently dominant scientific opinion (not to be confused with public opinion), sexual preference is not chosen willfully, and probably not induced by "promotion" or "seduction" either (though complete ignorance can prevent a "coming-out"). Consequently, there is no moral point against sexual preferences at all.
3. Some such preferences, including pedophilia, must not be allowed to be put into practice, in order to protect other moral values.
4. In cases of danger, the state can impose further sanctions on innocent persons. For example, farmers were forced to kill their perfectly healthy and well-kept livestock for fear of epidemics. Financial compensation is due.
5. Special obligations based on professions are also existing practice, e.g. for (registered!) prostitutes, approved by judges who otherwise insist that the state must not fight prostitution. Regulations only based on lifestyle could be morally and legally justified as well, if there were sufficient evidence that severe danger can be averted to a highly significant extent. In the case of Akenaton's proposal, he is the only person I know who believes this, and he does not appear unbiased at all. As for feasibility: modern ubiquitous spying is sufficient; individual declarations of sexual preference would not be required.

I wish this would finish that strange topic, unrelated to the ones of the threads where it appears, but I do not have much hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket being sick
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 08:15 AM

Behaviour?

Perverted?

Sick bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:47 AM

Thanks for the sensible response Mike and glad you spotted the 'holier than thou' leading to religious debate pun. If only all posts were similar :-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: MikeL2
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:18 AM

Hi Dave

Sorry you disagree with me but you are not on your own...but I don't hold that against you.

With regard to your <" I think if you should go on one of the religion v atheist threads and see a proper shouting match. Either that or go2L (gerrtit? Eh?)"> comment.

These days I make a point not to go to places on the net that argue about religion or politics.

"go2L"......hah ha ha ha

Regards

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:17 AM

The case to be made Ian, is not to "justify their existence", homosexuality is a fact of life and every generation brings forward the usual 3/4%. To be against homosexuals or to hate them for being homosexual would be sheer stupidity.
It is disingenuous of you to imply that I wish homosexuals to be exterminated and I am sure this was quite deliberate. You are a dishonest debater Ian and you wreck any attemps to discuss this subject in a grown up manner.

The case to be made is why are male homosexuals affected by such horrific rates of STD's in every country in the word; and what will be the consequences to society of bringing this behaviour into the mainstream and promoting it as just another safe and "loving" lifestyle, without examining the serious negative aspects of this behaviour and making a REAL attempt to put an end to the STD epidemic.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket being sick again
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 06:20 PM

I am genuinely having problems addressing him and acknowledging his presence. I have inspected prisons and forensic mental health hospitals and tried to see through issues to address their human concerns. Yet I think that the mindset displayed by this person, unashamedly and possibly oblivious to what he is actually saying is as disturbing as it gets. Possibly because he thinks he is normal.

However, he has just asked why I have not made a case. I shall answer that.

There is no case to make.

The only people who need to justify their existence are those who would put limitations on the lives of others. Which is why bigotry and hate are rejected by society.

The fascinating two part BBC documentary shown last month "Stepping Out" missed a trick. Stephen Fry didn't need to travel to Russia, Uganda or The USA to find dangerous individuals, he could have dropped the budget and looked nearer to home.

We like to think the days of casual hate are in the past. Gone are the days when the likes of Bernard Manning were seen as mainstream entertainment. Gone are the days when you could be legally judged by your race, Creed, colour or sexual orientation.

Yet people like this still not only breathe the same air as us, they can't see what is wrong with their view.

Freedom of expression has responsibilities attached. The alternative is personality disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:49 PM

To point out the health risks associated by any type of sexual behaviour is not "hatred".

Treating one section of society as second class citizens because of their sexual proclivities is though. What makes it even worse is pretending it is for their own good. Still, as Musket says, at least everyone can now see who the genuine abuser is.

Sick, just sick

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:42 PM

You have never attempted to make a case, Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket being sick
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:37 PM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 02:19 PM

Well Dave, I don't think there is anyone here who could make a reasonable case "that male to male sexual intercourse is NOT a perversion".....It is obviously a perversion, as males were never designed by god/nature to have sexual intercourse together.
The primary purpose of sex is procreation, and procreation can only be achieved by a man and a woman.

That is not to say that all perversions are wrong or harmful to the participants, but this particular one seems to result in horrific rates of sexually transmitted disease, a fact which needs to be urgently addressed.

Homosexuality is being foisted on society and promoted as "safe and healthy, just another lifestyle" etc, while the serious negative aspects are being completely ignored, or hidden under the spurious "equality" agenda.

To say that I "hate" homosexuals is wrong and a serious lie, I want to see the epidemic stopped, by any means available, whether the procedures required offend the sensibilities of "liberals" is of no concern to me.
To point out the health risks associated by any type of sexual behaviour is not "hatred".

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 01:10 PM

Good gracious, Ake. On how many more threads are you going to claim that you are poor abused little soldier when all you want to say is that male to male sex is perverted. It is you who are employing bullying tactics in an area where it really does matter. You are propagating a hatred of homosexuals for, as far as I can see, no reason but the fact that you dislike them. You pretend to care for their health but it is plain for all to see that it is nothing but a thin veneer of respectability applied to old prejudice.

There is one true statement you make.

Look at the number of interesting intelligent people who have left the forum through the activities of the abusers.

The sooner you stop your homophobic rants the sooner reasonable people can return.

And if nothing else, just stop trying to turn every post into your crusade against gay men.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 12:33 PM

You forgot a few..

Disgusting homophobic stain on humanity. Disgraceful bastard. If I went in a pub and you were there I would sup up and leave, wiping my feet on the way out. Classic combination of hate, ignorance and access to the internet. Pathetic attempts to twist figures he doesn't understand to justify a view that has no place in society.

Many more where they came from.

Akenhateon is a classic example of how even Mudcat can fall into the category of abuse. Gay members of Mudcat have to endure his vile filth, reading that they are perverts, that they should be forced to register and be assaulted, undergoing clinical tests they don't consent to. When you quiz him about sexually transmitted diseases, he isn't interested, just wants to stigmatise a small section of society.

That is the sort of abuse on this site, mainly by the odious shit hiding behind his Akenhateon monicker. He never fails to remind everybody of my real name, which is odd as he is the one who has shame to hide.

I sincerely wish bigotry would be dead and buried in this day and age, and if it died tomorrow would be no great loss. I can only wish I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 10:59 AM

Well I dunnoe Kendall, personally I don't care a damn what anyone calls me on an internet forum.....and I have been abused verbally probably more than any other member, because I say that male to male sex in unhealthy and carries huge rates of all male STD's.
This is a fact and not an opinion, but I am abused for stating a fact.

Many members are more easily intimidated than I am, and whenever they are told that "it would be better if they stopped breathing", or that they are "worms or steaming heaps of shit", or "morons, bigots, racists, homophobes etc, etc, is it not possible that they may be put off from posting their views?

Personal abuse should be stopped, do you notice that, when Joe or a respected poster like J from K appears on the thread, these people suddenly develop debating manners.....quite the little choirboys they are :0).

They are indeed children, children who think they can further a debate by driving others away with childish abuse.

If some issues are not to be debated, make them clear and they will never be mentioned.....if not come down on those who use personal abuse as a weapon, like a ton of bricks.

Ian put it in a nutshell when he urged others not to engage in debate with me, saying that "it gives him an aura of respectability".
What he meant was... reinforce the abusive language that he had already used.

Look at the number of interesting intelligent people who have left the forum through the activities of the abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: kendall
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 08:14 AM

Old Maine saying: "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 07:56 AM

I think we will just have to disagree on that, John. I don't see witness intimidation as being in scope of anti-bullying legislation and, I believe, the law is quite clear on it. The laws applied to bullying are far more vague and do not, I believe, come under the remit of corrupting the course of justice. I do, therefore, think that to put witness intimidation in the remit of anti-bullying laws is wasteful in that intimidation is already severely dealt with. I understand that the laws in the UK are different to those in the US where anti-bullying legislation may vary from state to state, but I think the principle still stands. If we put too much in the scope of anti-bullying we will detract from dealing with cases like those mentioned in the OP.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 06:34 AM

DtG: In fairness, I don't think that blaming the victims because they go on Facebook is any more right than blaming them because they go to school or live in a certain town. Face book is, as far as I can see, essential for teenagers and no-one should stop them using it.

Greg F: I sure can remember. However, FarceBook really IS time-wasting, narcissistic, addictive crap- recognized by quite a few folks other than old farts like myself.

I don't see this at all. FaceBook seems to be used across a wide spectrum of age groups. In fact, a lot of the younger people I know don't use it much...they're more into peer-to-peer communications on their smartphones.

Certainly of my fairly large group of FB contacts, all those who've recently deactivated their accounts have been under 25. Only 1 of my 3 kids is on FB. One recently deactivated her account. Most of their friends aren't on it.

I'm pretty "mature" myself at 58 but to me a large section of Mudcatters seems to be cut from the same cloth as my grandparents/ parents...grandma who thought that these "telephone" things were totally unnecessary...anyone who couldn't wait for the second post was in too much of a hurry! And parents who thought that all this "music" I listened to as a teenager was "just noise" and why couldn't I listen to *proper* singers like the InkSpots or Paul Robeson?

The thing about anything new is to use it properly and not to let it use you. Almost all my climbing, music and fitness/running events, meetings and socials are organised through FaceBook. There's hardly any "narcissistic" content from the people I'm connected to. Just had a quick look at the age profiles of my FB friends and the curve peaks at late 30s to mid 40s. I admit that's probably a bit skewed by my own age, but OTOH I do socialise pretty widely across age groups. My oldest running friend is 82 and my youngest climbing friend 17. Running friends tend to peak at around 32.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:36 AM

DtG

In order to discount that much of the stuff mentioned in the article I posted is bullying, you have to assume that it ALL IS POSTED ONLY BY THOSE with the specific intent to intimidate witnesses for the purpose of affecting legal processes.

There are far more people with the antisocial attitude attitude that anyone who helps law enforcement is "someone I don't like" so "I should tell everyone how horrid these people are."

That's perfectly consistent with what I see as "bullying."

There are plenty of people who create and spread defamatory tales about people they just don't like, and those kind are included in the ones mentioned in the article, along with the criminals themselves.

Speech, action, or anything else with the intent to harm someone "just because you want to" is bullying, regardless of the motive - or the age of the ""criminal.""

I fail to see the difference you claim, except the most superficial interpretation of the kinds of bullying that deserve the name.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:34 AM

Snag is Dave, as we see on other threads. Some people think it is clever to dismiss disagreement with their views as bullying or, in one hilarious thread recently, being disrespectful to a few million dead people.

We have seen people who don't like being questioned go running to the moderators crying bully!

As the genuine concern on this thread can be for young or vulnerable people, perhaps we should be aware of the lack of maturity of some of the less respectable members of Mudcat.org. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:05 AM

What I don't understand, amongst many other things, is what makes the above intimidation into bullying. I do note that you put "Bullying" in quotes John so I assume that you are not sure whether this is bullying either? As I have said before, I am not qualified to determine whether someone is being bullied, intimidated or abused. None of them should be tolerated but what is happening here and in many other places is that people are jumping on the "Bully" bandwagon. This is not doing the recipients of any of these activities any good.

The intimidation detailed in the article John linked has specific criminal links and is done solely for the purpose of corrupting the course of justice. Bullying isn't. Disagreeing, however vehemently, with someones views is debating. Bullying isn't. To lump all such things together only dilutes the case against real bullies. Those who scream bully when none are there can only be making things harder for genuine victims. In my opinion of course.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 01:11 AM

It might be of interest to note that "bullying" is not limited just to kids (including those here) but is a growing concern for other (non-juvenile) areas of law inforcement:

Witness intimidation on social media: Law enforcement's growing challenge
By Elizabeth Chuck, Staff Writer, NBC News
15 Nov 2013

When news broke last Friday that there was an Instagram account devoted exclusively to ratting out witnesses to crimes across Philadelphia, social media experts barely blinked an eye.

"It's absolutely not surprising to me. People are taking pictures of witnesses, they're posting them online, and they're doing it specifically for witness intimidation," said Bradley Shear, a Bethesda, Md., attorney who specializes in social media law, adding that both Facebook and Twitter are also part of the growing trend. "And it's only going to increase with frequency. People have to be so careful with where they are, who is taking pictures of them."

While intimidating witnesses isn't new, social media is the latest vehicle by which to do so.

"Witness intimidation has long been a part of the challenge of using criminal informants in our justice system," said Alexandra Natapoff, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Social media and the online exchange of information have changed many of the ways we think about law enforcement and crime control, and this is one of the important ways."

The account on the photo-sharing site — called "rats215" — had identified more than 30 witnesses since February, and had posted pictures, police statements and testimony, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

The account has since been disabled. But it's just the latest example of witnesses encountering threatening messages on social networks or being photographed in courtrooms and later having their pictures show up online.

Last month, a Buffalo, N.Y., drug defendant was convicted of witness intimidation and tampering with a witness after the witness' testimony and statements were posted to Facebook on the eve of his trial. In July, two Louisiana men were indicted for threatening a federal witness via Instagram; each face maximum sentences of 30 years in prison if convicted.

The following month, in Philadelphia — where the District Attorney's office says witness intimidation is at a "near epidemic" level — a 20-year-old man was sentenced to up to 23 months in prison for Facebook posts in which he threatened witnesses, including posts showing a witness' statement and status updates that said "Kill all rats." A Pottstown, Pa., woman is currently serving a two- to five-year sentence for using Facebook to intimidate a witness of an attempted murder by her boyfriend.

There is even an online database, whosarat.com, where members can post and view photos of thousands of criminal informants.

On Tuesday, Philadelphia police made an arrest in connection to the "rats215" account: Nasheen Anderson, a 17-year-old of East Germantown, Pa., was charged with witness intimidation and terroristic threats for labeling victims as rats on Twitter. The account posted information about a 2012 shooting in Philadelphia, according to the District Attorney's office; a police spokesperson said the same information that appeared on the Twitter account showed up on the rats215 Instagram account.

"I don't care how old you are, if you intimidate a witness in this city, I'm going to come after you," District Attorney Seth Williams warned in a press release on Wednesday.

Digital witness intimidation has created new problems for law enforcement and for courts, experts say.

"It used to be that the control of information in the criminal justice was an important way that we kept the system regular and safe, and now social media and the Internet have really destroyed the government's ability to control information in cases. It's opened up all kinds of possibilities that are challenging the old rules of criminal justice and criminal procedure," Natapoff said.

Efforts to combat social media witness intimidation have increased around the nation in recent years, but more laws are likely, Natapoff said.

Already, some courthouses have gone so far as to ban cellphones. Cook County, Ill., where gang intimidation has been a persistent problem, passed a law banning mobile phones from their criminal courthouses this past April.

Circuit Court of Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans said he pushed for the ban, which includes laptops and tablets, because cellphone pictures and videos have led to the murders of witnesses in Cook County.

[The post is about half of the article. The remainder speaks largely of the difficulties of enforcing limits on witness intimidation in and out of the courts. Since it's been up for a few days, I'd suggest anyone interested should read the whole thing soon, as such "news" tends to disappear when something more sensational comes along.]

John

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:36 PM

BTW - Must disagree with MikeL2 as well. Sorry Mike but the shouting match was a non-entity. I think you expected one and saw what was not there. A couple of sarcy quips and it was over. I did find your post very 'holier than thou' though. I think if you should go on one of the religion v atheist threads and see a proper shouting match. Either that or go2L (gerrtit? Eh?)

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:33 PM

You didn't used to see him in The Drum in Shirebrook on payday. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:22 PM

Musket's OK. Messiah M is good. That Mather bloke is a pain in the arse. Never see him getting down and dirty...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 12:08 PM

I was impressed by how quickly any embryonic shouting match fizzled out in this thread?

When I offered a wrestling match in the mud with the pigs, only Dave replied and he doesn't count as he is a co Messiah, (or at least the official associated gnome, see a couple of the "holier than thou" threads for further details.)

With regard to Grishka's last point, another trait of those using their real names and lack of dignity is that they tend to refer to those of us with silly Mudcat names by our real names too, as if a) no bugger knows who you are and b) that the real you might reply differently.

I suppose there is something in that.

(Insulting crap from x member, say... I don't know; from Scotland to give a random example)

Ian Mather's response - "I honestly think that your viewpoint doesn't hold merit with regard to this debate. Having a view on others based on something other than their words and deeds isn't really objective or useful."

Musket's response - "Why don't you @££^&!! off you bigoted Tw2365!!!!"

Likewise, someone might put, politely and without bad language something so outrageous and insulting, but phrased as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouth. When I or others point this out and let them know how awful their comments are, especially to those aimed at, we are the ones "lowering the tone" in the eyes of silly buggers who think any view is valid and should be heard, even if it happens to be full of stereotyping hatred or judging sections of society based on their prejudice.

You know, what gets me isn't the ones shouting, its the ones keeping quiet when they know a post is beyond what is acceptable. To permit is to promote.

I don't mind being dismissed as a shouty twat. There are some on here who need shouting at or they think their more odious views are mainstream.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 11:10 AM

The OP tells us she is from the UK herself (Cornish - does that make a difference?). In fact the national idiosyncrasies are not as marked as sometimes claimed, usually as lame excuses. Another effect is more dominant: many "netizens" who sail under their true name tend to feel exempt even from the rudimentary rules of politeness and dignity that apply, say, in English pubs or US "saloons" for anonymous customers. Strange, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: MikeL2
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 10:28 AM

Hi

This thread produced it's predictable shouting match. It was inevitable from the first sentence.

I like Lizzie a lot. Many times she makes really good points - but some of them can be controversial.

I don't always agree with all of her points but I always remain in the shadows waiting for the rumpus to start.

I read some of the controversial threads by way of amusement, mostly I just smile to myself and let the " tigers roar".

There are many sensible people here who create both interesting, entertaining and extremely useful and helpful topics.

Those are the ones I go to and occasionally participate.

Let the trolls spout I say. Soon they will all be together leaving us to enjoy the sensible stuff.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 09:53 AM

Then get yer leotard on and grease up!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 08:56 AM

Hey, less of the obnoxious idiots. I'll have you know I am an odious ignoramus.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 07:58 AM

A bit of a dig here and there in this thread about UK vs USA manners when posting on Mudcat.

I have noted before that generally, we in The UK tend to start shouting at each other and treat Johnny Foreigner with disdain. Or at least that is how it is said. I personally think, having lived and worked in both countries, that banter etiquette is different, thats all.

True, calling a spade an earth inverting horticultural implement isn't the usual trait of UK based mudcatters. However, be grateful we can't carry guns. In any event, with the dishonourable exceptions of perhaps Songwronger and Goofus, we also have the most number of obnoxious idiots so be grateful we enjoy wrestling in the mud with the pigs.