Dr_Pangloss Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 No, you should not be jailed for social network comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I find it outrageous tbh. I very much doubt anyone donated money so they could pay someones mortgage, especially a family with an annual income of £200k+ a year. In fact the whole sorry tale makes my blood boil because… The best case scenario is still that they were shit irresponsible parents. It is absolutely amazing the amount of sympathy they garnered over this and yes class has an awful lot to do with it, had they been working class, they'd have been arrested on return to the country. As a colonial, I'm no expert on who's working class and who isn't, but I'd have thought that devout catho-papo-lics were normally working class. Anyway, surely any parents who've had a child abducted and presumably murdered deserve sympathy? Whatever your view of their conduct subsequently, it's hardly as though they don't give a shit about their daughter's disappearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Women that allegedly abused the McCanns on Twitter found dead in a hotel in Leicester tonight .... presumably the two are linked ? I'm torn on this as it seems a crime to abuse people on the interweb but not a crime to abandon your children and go out with your mates on the piss ( i should add that I make this comment having not read the abuse so no idea how vile /abusive it was ) Did the McCann's take the lady to the hotel, then leave her there whilst they went to party? Just wondering. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Didn't the McCanns allegedly go to the media before going to the police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 6, 2014 Author Share Posted October 6, 2014 mildy irresponsible?! Anything could have happened in the time they left their young kids while they were out having a laugh, and did. Well I hope we can at least agree that they didn't deserve what happened to them. The hateful vitriol which was and still is directed at the McCanns, is totally beyond my understanding. As is the sympathetic approach they receive at the hands of the media and the authorities, beyond mine. The public money that has been spent on this family is preposterous. The amount of public sympathy they've garnered and money they've received (to pay off their mortgage) is absolutely astonishing when you consider the best case scenario is that they were bloody awful parents. they used it to pay 2 monthly payments (not pay off the whole mortgage) ..presumably as they were both on an extended and unpaid leave from work whilst they remained in Portugal .... I don't know that I find that completely unreasonable in the circumstances ... I find it outrageous tbh. I very much doubt anyone donated money so they could pay someones mortgage, especially a family with an annual income of £200k+ a year. In fact the whole sorry tale makes my blood boil because… The best case scenario is still that they were shit irresponsible parents. It is absolutely amazing the amount of sympathy they garnered over this and yes class has an awful lot to do with it, had they been working class, they'd have been arrested on return to the country. On the basis that you probably donated nothing it really shouldn't upset you so much The donated money was to help find Madeline , on the basis that the parents were unable to work whilst they were in Portugal looking for Madeline and they applied for funds legally through the fund I don't share your outrage in this instance ... I don't buy into the class system theory either tbh , had they been working class they would have spent all their money on beer and fags and wouldn't have been able to afford to be in Portugal to start with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post darrenm Posted October 6, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 6, 2014 Whether I have sympathy for them or not, I still don't understand how they didn't get charged with neglect. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted October 6, 2014 Administrator Share Posted October 6, 2014 No, you should not be jailed for social network comments. Why not? If a crime is committed which carries a custodial sentence it makes no difference whether that crime was on social media or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) Whether I have sympathy for them or not, I still don't understand how they didn't get charged with neglect. Same here. I have never understood why there was never any attempt to charge them with anything. Only thing I can thing of is that the Portuguese authorities really didn't fancy having the worlds craziest media circus on their doorstep if it went to trial. Edited October 6, 2014 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Whether I have sympathy for them or not, I still don't understand how they didn't get charged with neglect. Upper-middle class doctors with an 'angelic' blonde daughter... No, you should not be jailed for social network comments. Why not? If a crime is committed which carries a custodial sentence it makes no difference whether that crime was on social media or not. ..because you shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I agree with Limpid, but only if the charge is racism, hatred, threats etc. We must at the same time protect freedom of specch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted October 6, 2014 Administrator Share Posted October 6, 2014 ..because you shouldn't. I agree with Limpid, but only if the charge is racism, hatred, threats etc. We must at the same time protect freedom of specch. Yes, just as in all forms of expression. Social media isn't a special case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B94villa Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 They were overexposed, and that turned a lot of people against them. What made their daughter worth thousands of hours of coverage when young children are kidnapped or sold into sex slavery every day? Their case was tragic but, at least in my opinion, it should have been left in the hands of the professionals and not dealt with so publicly. I wonder if there is a study about the success rates of cases that go public and those that don't. But those are my misgivings about the coverage of the case itself. As for the McCanns, they were desperate and it is extremely harsh and unfair to judge people on how they behave in those circumstances. Many did, and still do. Owen Jones wrote a bit about the difference between the media reaction to Madeleine McCann and Shannon Mathews in Chavs. It wasn't particularly in-depth and some of the points I didn't necessarily agree with, but the general thrust of the argument seems fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Social media is no different to saying it out loud in a pub. Essentially regardless of what you say, social media is a written document, a database of information freely available to anyone. Whilst we may watch brasseye and joke about things with our friends in a satirical way, equally controversial, friends know meaning and boundaries of each other. You don't put things like that on Twitter. Unless you are someone like Frankie Boyle and everyone knows your humour and that you generally (no matter how controversial) don't really mean it. Just like the guy that got taken to court by saying he was going to set off a bomb (was it East Midlands?) for whatever the reason was.... whilst his best friend might have lol'd at it and said, "if you do make sure you pack ricin around it to kill a few more off", putting it on twitter could get you in trouble. As for the McCanns, as far as I am aware their fund isn't a charity but a private company, which seems strange to me. There are a variety of strong "factual" reasons for and against what they did and the evidence collected from the local police. The fact her body has never been found and they've managed to have such a monstrous profile for a case which must have happened to many other families without the parents clear negligence is a bit annoying to be honest. I mean whilst they could have been involved somehow, they would have to have some serious psychotic minds to pull it off, I mean even Fred and Rose got caught out in the end, and they had a good run. Even Dexter Morgan would struggle to find anything concrete against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 'We live in an age' ...yadda yadda.Grayling is intending to increase the penalty for 'internet' 'abuse' to 2 years from 6 months (tacking it on to a current bill and as it's a current vogue and a few famous people may be on the receiving end it'll likely be rushed through).FFS, there are adequate laws currently.What a drip of a world we are in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismail-villa Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Did they send Kay Burley? I think I'd kill myself if she descended upon my person.I would do many a thing to her Edited October 20, 2014 by ismail-villa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 20, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 20, 2014 'We live in an age' ...yadda yadda.Grayling is intending to increase the penalty for 'internet' 'abuse' to 2 years from 6 months (tacking it on to a current bill and as it's a current vogue and a few famous people may be on the receiving end it'll likely be rushed through).FFS, there are adequate laws currently.What a drip of a world we are in.I think thats the main point, the law already covers this. Why would something on the internet need a different sentencing guide to its equivalent non-cyber crime. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 'We live in an age' ...yadda yadda. Grayling is intending to increase the penalty for 'internet' 'abuse' to 2 years from 6 months (tacking it on to a current bill and as it's a current vogue and a few famous people may be on the receiving end it'll likely be rushed through). FFS, there are adequate laws currently. What a drip of a world we are in. I think thats the main point, the law already covers this. Why would something on the internet need a different sentencing guide to its equivalent non-cyber crime. come on, there are two things we can do here either enforce existing laws which will require actual resource and incur costs, or, tell people there will be action!!! there will be a stiff new law!!!! we will not rest!!! the daily mail has already splashed across it's front cover that it's gonna be 2 years in prison for muslim troll spiders - so a job well done for Mr Grayling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts