Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve arrest?


by Sunny Hundal    
9:05 am - July 31st 2012

      Share on Tumblr

Before we get into a discussion of the implications, its first worth recording what happened. If you’ve already followed it then skip down.

It all started with the diver Tom Daley sending out this Tweet after his Olympics performance yesterday.

Naturally, his fans exploded in anger.

Inevitably, people started abusing the ‘Rileyy’, who typically retaliated with his own threats.

The Daily Mirror has also put this on its front page today.

Tuesday's Daily Mirror front page - "Tom Twitter tr... on Twitpic

And now the police is involved.

But should the police get involved so readily? Should he be suspended from Twitter? I suppose he made threats against people – both of which go against Twitter policy.

But wasn’t all of this inevitable after Tom Daley re-tweeted him? Which youngster wouldn’t go a bit crazed under the weight of people swearing at him?

Is it really worth arresting and charging him?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Jesse Boucher

Not entirely fair representation. The threat to ‘Find him and drown him (Tom Daley)’ has not been included in your article above

The knife and rope threats perhaps warrant police involvement, but not the original tweets.

3. Chaise Guevara

“But wasn’t all of this inevitable after Tom Daley re-tweeted him? Which youngster wouldn’t go a bit crazed under the weight of people swearing at him? ”

Agreed, Sunny. It’s not even clear who got threatening/abusive first.

One of the many problems with this sort of thing is that the police and courts seem to take things literally when they really shouldn’t.

Is it really worth arresting and charging him?

The question answers itself.
Obviously not for the original tweet.
I hadn’t seen the other more threatening ones.
Even then I would say not; unless he actually knows who Roy Cropper is and where he lives.

You only have to go back 24 hours or so in his twitter feed to find consistant racist abuse and very, very threatening behaviour. Far, far worse than anything John Terry did, and I agreed that he should have been arrested, so have no sympathy for this vile characther either.

Random sample of his tweets:

http://i.imgur.com/96VMX.jpg

7. Canon Barry Naylor

So it’s really all Tom Daley’s fault? The youth’s tweets were threatening, racist and offensive as was his YouTube performance. It is right police involved; hope they can show him error of his ways and help him see just how unacceptable his behaviour was. No use apologising and then continuing similar behaviour.

Unless someone has reason to take the threats seriously, I can’t see why the police need to be involved. A twitter ban would be more proportionate and you don’t need the police to do that.

“Which youngster wouldn’t go a bit crazed under the weight of people swearing at him?”

Uh, probably almost all of them? It doesn’t take a lot of effort or intelligence or maturity to not send people death threats.

Most 17-year-olds are are not tantrum-throwing toddlers. At least not the ones I know. His tweets are not random “fuck you trololol”s, they’re ugly threats of violence designed to intimidate.

Would your view be different if he’d written “you cunt i’ll stick a knife down your fuckin throat” on paper and mailed it to a stranger?

Maybe arrest is too far, but the troll is not the victim here.

Tom shouldn’t have gone all arms house on him over a stupid tweet. Where’s his head at? Where are his PR team and advisers. Does he need all this meeja hype over a young lad with clearly limited life chances? No. He should have risen above it. Twitter has a block option.

Take a look back at his timeline- not just yesterday, but every day there are threats to kill, hurt, stab people. He even posted a threat to drop kick a pregnant woman, and a lengthy youtube threat to kill someone.

Let’s not pretend that he simply reacted badly to his critics- he does this regularly

It’s Twitter. It’s an immature idiot mouthing off. He doesn’t have the resources to “hunt down” half the people he’s threatening anyway.

Tom Daley didn’t help matters by stirring this up far more than was necessary. Whatever happened to “turn the other cheek” (or at least “do not feed the trolls”)?

But, had he not tweeted something mean to a sleb, no one would give a shit about his back catalog. There are a million other idiots just like that online. Keyboard warriors who melt away in the real.. Trial by an indignant Twitter mob backed by tabloid readers is more scary than angry teenagers tweeting nonsense.

Does he deserve arrest? Well if we look at past twitter incidents that the police have got themselves involved in the unfortunate precedent is that yes, he does. Whether or not that is just is a different question entirely. The simple fact that his tweets were actual death threats rather than insults makes his case for protected free speech non-existant at best.

Also remember this is what the Great British public wants done regarding twitter & facebook trolls.

@bl0ke “He doesn’t have the resources to “hunt down” half the people he’s threatening anyway.”

How do you know that?

Presumably that is one of the reasons the police are currently interviewing him, to find out just how credible the threats are.

No.
The tweeter is a prat plain and simple.
Twitter is fast becoming an online version of the Jeremy Kyle Show.

I think plausibility has to come into account when accusations of death threats are thrown about and the argument for police involvement. Does anyone seriously believe the troll was in any way capable of carrying out his cartoonish threats?

There is a case for incitement to be a crime, however it must be very tightly and narrowly defined much more than it is.

It is ridiculous, nonsensical and unimportant events like this ‘daley twitter abuse’ that is a sign of our retarded political times. I would say even regressive political times. Since when do we have to rely on the state to regulate pleasantries or protect us from obnoxious views? The debate has changed from politics to morality and that has opened up the intervention of the state into our lives and completely ruined the landscape in which speech is thought of, defended and defined.

18. The End Is Nigh

R.I.P Freedom of speech.
R.I.P Democracy

Congrats people, finally gonna get your police state.
You know the guys that can kill and not get prosecuted, the people in league with the phone hackers. All run by rich liars and cheats that make up our M.P’s.

Hopefully China will invade soon and end the farce that is England.

Of course he should it wasn’t only tweets to Tom daley he sent, other tweets that were threatening and also racist were sent. He cannot expect to say something to someone that is dry disrespectful and not get anything in return. It might be nice for you to include other tweets this boy has done, instead of sticking up for someone who says such vile things. This is no way Toms fault as it seems you are saying. Whether Tom retweeted it or not, other followers of his would have retaliated.

What he said was awful but I got worse at school: are we going to start arresting school bullies now?!

21. Planeshift

“R.I.P Freedom of speech.
R.I.P Democracy”

The thing I love most about the internet is that people who comment on political sites have a sense of perspective.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ 19 Nikki

I think we HAVE arrested school bullies in the past (and in fairness it’s sometimes justified). But the key differences here are a) school bullies are kids where this guy is presumably an adult, and b) the use of Twitter allows actions to be proven much more easily than comments made in the playground.

I blow hot and cold on the idea of involving the legal system in school misbehaviour. On the one hand, calling the police feels like a huge overreaction. On the other, adults are protected from being beaten up and I don’t know why we expect kids to put up with it. If a kid who had been decked by bullies demanded that charges be pressed I’m not sure how you could justify refusing.

@ A

When they come a knocking for you, there will be no one left to help you…

But should the police get involved so readily?

If there is something that looks like a threat the police are obliged to get “involved”. Now, “involved” can mean anything from having a look at the tweet or the timeline, to interviewing the person, to arresting him and turning over his house. The latter seems excessive in the the context of the OP, but does anyone object to the former?

Yes, he should be questioned. Threats and victimization are used every day by people who hide behind a screen. Its bravado through cowardice. Freedom of speech yes, but hurtful things like this, nope. Its about personal responsibility in my mind. We are responsible for what we say and do. Too many post online and then forget about it or boast to their fellow cowards. They are irresponsible and don’t think about consequences. So, yes, this is the right response and sets a precedence for other twits who gain bravado from anonymity.

For whatever reason – perhaps he put the OP together after rileyy_69 made the account private – Sunny hasn’t included all the offending tweets, where rileyy_69 wrote several times that he would drown Daley, shoot someone else, and torture another person.

I’m sure it was a great laugh at the time, and yes free speech is important, but don’t be surprised the police get involved when you write what look like threats to non-psychics.

Surely it’s right to be at least a little concerned about someone who writes multiple times that they are going to drown, shoot or torture a named individual.

27. Fran Goodman

I was on twitter at the time. He made a death threat BUT there were death threats made to him too so I wonder if those will be investigated. But the irony of it all is that the same mob who went after Rileyy_69 were making death threats towards the Japanese gymnastic team yesterday.

@2 Sean Anderson: The knife and rope threats perhaps warrant police involvement, but not the original tweets.

Agreed. My take here. Rileyy_69 is clearly an immature and obnoxious prat, but free speech means the right to say things that offend others.

@2 Sean Anderson: The knife and rope threats perhaps warrant police involvement, but not the original tweets.

Agreed.

Free speech is important, and [includes the right to offend others](http://meowc.at/message/113). But explicit threats of violence should be actionable.

30. Step Left

Plausibility should figure into valuing threats/incitement to violence. Posting it on twitter is the weakest form of threatening someone. Twitter is a rant/abuse fest that anyone, around the world can engage in. How plausible is it taht some punk kid actually had the will and capacity to carry out his ridiculous and cartoonish threats? None at all.

The Police have brains like the rest of us. I’d be suprised if many people took those threats seriously. It seems people might have sympathy with the arrest because ‘he made a threat on daley’s life’ and threatening peoples lives is against the law, rather than ‘he made a threat and is a genuine threat to daly’s life so pre-emptive action was necessary’. Two clearly different issues and reactions.

Incitement for violence/murder should be a an issue for police involvement. However the current defintions are massively too broad and factors like plausibility should be a key factor in determining whether it is a legal matter.

Furthermore, this troll has been arrested under other legislation too, because apparently offensive speech is criminalised too.

31. Shatterface

But should the police get involved so readily? Should he be suspended from Twitter? I suppose he made threats against people – both of which go against Twitter policy.

No ‘suppose’ about it – they are direct threats to an individual.

But wasn’t all of this inevitable after Tom Daley re-tweeted him? Which youngster wouldn’t go a bit crazed under the weight of people swearing at him?

Whether it was ‘inevitable’ or not he brought it on himself. Its seems bizarre to defend a hack for tweeting the name and email address of a NBC exec while criticising the victim of cyberbullying for retreating abuse directed at himself. You seem to be implying this is Daley’s fault.

Is it really worth arresting and charging him?

I don’t necessarily think he deserves to be arrested but it would be criminally irresponsible NOT to investigate death threats. These aren’t obvious jokes like Robin Hood Airport ‘incident’.

And if anyone wishes to stand by this thug may I suggest the hashtag #ImSpartaCunt?

@12: Tom Daley didn’t help matters by stirring this up far more than was necessary.

He did nothing wrong in making the idiot’s original tweet public.

33. David Cooper

The original tweet shows
(a) lack of total and utter respect for the Olympics and their sponsors.
(b) lack of sufficient respect for a celebrity

Now that the UK is a police state where every comment can be pounced on by the authorities, only the death penalty is sufficient punishment. Or perhaps hanging is not good enough. As an even worse punishment, I suggest the kid should be sent on a cultural sensitivity awareness course.

The answer to the question posed at the end of this piece is – no, the police shouldn’t have arrested this fool. There is a fine line between being a ‘twitter twit’ and a criminal, and the criminal law can distinguish between someone who pursues a course of conduct amounting to harassment and someone who is just a ‘tw*t.’ In this case Riley-69, or whatever he wants to be called, is just an idiot who deserves our contempt, but, unless his idiocy becomes a campaign of harassment then, he the criminal justice system should not be called upon.

I analyse the law in the following piece – follow the link: http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2012/07/the-fine-line-between-being-a-twit-and-being-a-criminal/

35. Chaise Guevara

@ Shatterface

“And if anyone wishes to stand by this thug may I suggest the hashtag #ImSpartaCunt?”

I salute that for pure punnery, but I should point out that one of the problems with the whole “arrested for Twitter banter” thing is that the people being prosecuted tend to be unlikeable, often either racist or unpleasant. This means that a lot of the public approve of the charges on this basis alone, without considering the nature of the laws behind them and the implications for freedom of speech.

I’ve changed my mind about this case since learning that the guy habitually made death threats about other users – I had formerly assumed they were a reaction to finding himself being abused by hundreds of people. It doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to charge him for the threats, although I wonder if it’s really in the public interest.

However, if he is also prosecuted simply for the comment about Daley’s dad, I think we have a genuine free-speech issue and dismissing the problem just because we don’t like this particular victim of it is not the way forward.

“However, if he is also prosecuted simply for the comment about Daley’s dad”

Also, if he’s prosecuted for having daft thoughts, for aggravated being a fuckwit in a public area, and/or for excessive mouthbreathing.

Luckily, he won’t be prosecuted for any of these things, despite doubtless having done all of the above, because they aren’t criminal offences. Just like the comment about Daley’s dad. If he’s prosecuted or convicted, it will be for the subsequent ones.

Anyone claiming he was arrested for, will be charged for, will be prosecuted for, or will be convicted for that comment has literally no sodding clue what they are talking about.

Sending someone messages that are cruel but neither explicitly or implicitly menacing, obscene, containing incitement to racial/religious hatred, or part of a pattern showing harassment is legal. And not even the most fervent censor could demonstrate any of these for that message.

Yes, this means a fair amount of commentary on the topic is by people who have literally no sodding clue what they are talking about.

37. Chaise Guevara

@ 35 John B

“Luckily, he won’t be prosecuted for any of these things, despite doubtless having done all of the above, because they aren’t criminal offences.”

Malicious Communications Act seems to allow grounds for prosecution if the message is “grossly offensive” (which is very subjective) and is likely to cause distress (which this one obviously is).

Furthermore, I’m sure I recall it being used against people for saying things that, like this, were simply in bad taste – although I don’t remember the details and admit that I might have caught a misreported version, so I’ll wait to see if other posters can enlighten me.

38. Shatterface

However, if he is also prosecuted simply for the comment about Daley’s dad, I think we have a genuine free-speech issue and dismissing the problem just because we don’t like this particular victim of it is not the way forward.

I wouldn’t support prosecution over comments about Daley’s dad though I think Twitter would be well in their rights to suspend Rileyy’s accounts for that alone.

But how many cases have we seen where reporters dig into some killer’s Facebook, Twitter or YouTube account, find a shitload of rants, threats and other brainwrongery, and then ask why did nobody ask questions at the time? If the police didn’t ask questions when concerns are raised they’d be crucified.

Who cares? Political types seem to think they have to care about everything, but it’s very liberating to just shrug your shoulders and say “sod it”. There are only about four or five things in the world that actually matter and this isn’t one of them, so arrest him or give him an MBE, I officially don’t care.

The police should not be involved in the tweet to Daley. The tweeter has lost face within his own community (unless he’s in a community of twits, which he might be).

I doubt he was arrested for what he wrote to Tom, more likely for the other comments on his thread.

In the meantime, ponder what he said and to whom.

Tom’s dad battled against cancer for many years, while bringing up his son – and two other sons – and encouraging Tom’s diving. They were very close and Rob clearly thought the world of Tom and vice versa. Tom publicly vowed that if he won any kind of medal it would be dedicated to his father’s memory. After London was picked to hold the Olympics Rob said teh thing he wanted most to see was Tom make it to Games – the medal was secondary, but Tom getting to the Games was everything.
Sadly, he never made it, losing his fight to cancer last year.
Now, within moments of coming fourth and probably feeling immensely dispirited this git writes to a teenage boy who has given his all “you’ve let your dad down” before swearing, threatending to drown him, calling him all manner of things, then claiming he was sorry, saying he didn’t know Tom’s dad was dead, then returning to his abuse.

No, he doesn’t deserve to be arrested for that. Merely shunned and not given any kind of support for the stuff he was arrested for. Which was racist, threatening and abusive and may well have breached a number of laws, not just a website “comments policy”.

Meanwhile have a read of this excellent blog on the subject http://thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk-diver-tom-daley-subjected-to-abuse-by-twitter-user-rileyy_69/

42. Dick the Prick

Arrest seems over the top, this genuinely seems exactly what tabloid media is for. The guy is a horrible little turd though and people get arrested for less so screw him.

Either you didn’t read all this person’s tweets, or you have chosen to not report anything he tweeted prior to his insulting tweet to Tom Daley. I DID read all the tweets he made for the 48 hours prior to his initial Tom Daley tweet.

And the “man” is a vile individual. His tweets are variously: racist, sexist, homophobic, threatening, harrassing. His threats were to stab, drown, shoot, rape, etc anybody he didn’t like. His modus operandi was to contact somebody at random hoping to elicit a shocked reply, and to then bombard that person with threats, insults and so on.

His language could be described as puerile – but actually it was absolutely disgusting. It would make the hardest of hard soldiers blush in embarrassment.

So, don’t talk to me about his freedom of speech being eroded. He chose to use that freedom without taking any account of the responsibilities that come with that freedom.

Furthermore, the police will have seen all his tweets PRIOR to the one he sent Tom Daley, and will have arrested him as a result of those tweets. His tweet to Tom Daley fitted his MO perfectly. Send a controversial and insulting message, and wait for a reply – then bombard him with crude and threatening tweets thereafter.

What “Riley Junior” didn’t realise was that he was about to get a backlash from decent, right-thinking people. Typical of a bully, he responded first by bleating about how unfair it all was, then he reverted to type, tweeting insults and defiance in equal measure.

The guy deserves to be locked away for a long time.

Finally – don’t you EVER again suggest that a victim fighting back against a bully is asking for trouble. That is giving the bully a green light to carry on his evil ways. You may want your freedoms, but it should not at the cost of creating a society in which people like Riley Junior can get away with this sort of crap. So shame on you for even beginning to suggest otherwise.

And in future, do your research before you express an opinion.

44. Charlieman

This idiot’s words are not directly comparable with those of Paul Chambers, but both cases are good examples of when to respond with moderation to “daft stuff on the internet”.

In the Paul Chambers case, we have learned that many of the investigators (police and prosecution service) considered it to be a storm in a teacup and that Paul Chambers should not have been prosecuted. A cool head would have concluded that a few wise words about how a joke may be misinterpreted was enough to close the police investigation. Sadly, the police investigation was necessary owing to the nature of the “threat” but that investigation could have been more proportionate.

As for this idiot, arrest and investigation are an inevitable consequence of threats that he made. It should not be inevitable that this goes much further at a legal or police level. The individual deserves to be treated like a drunk shouting insults from the comfort of the gutter.

If no cool heads are currently available, I suggest that the police and prosecution service do nothing for now, other than signal that they are aware of this individual’s behaviour. As Shatterface suggests, the police have to perform background checks to establish whether there is a more serious problem than stupidity. If anybody still thinks that this idiot is a problem in a month’s time, the investigation can be re-opened.

Of course, how could it not be an arrestable offense to tell someone you’re going to drown them or stab them. ?

Death threats to all and sundry are free expression and needn’t involve the police? Wouldn’t things look different retrospectively if he’d turned out to be a psycho who had killed someone? Where would the police stand then?

I spent some time this afternoon having a look at this guys timeline, and there is no doubt that he has said some awful things to a lot of people – not just starting yesterday but as far back as I could be bothered to read.

However it seems that his twitter persona was surprisingly popular, mainly with teenage girls, and that many of them follow him and another user called Olly Riley. https://twitter.com/_OllyRiley From what I can tell Rileyy_69 is obsessed with OllyRiley, which is why he calls himself Riley Junior. They endlessly thrown insults around at each other, and have gained thousands of young fans in the process. OllyRiley has over 130,000 followers – mostly young girls who send him pictures of their body parts. The extreme abuse seems to be welcomed by their followers – it seems that they deliberately provoke them into abusing them and each other. Neither of them seem to have anything to offer other than self promotion, misogyny, racism and violent insults, and yet they have become ridiculously regardless.

So maybe this idiot didn’t realise that not everyone would appreciate his ‘banter’. From what I can tell there is no danger of him carrying out his death threats either. Who knows

Short answer, yes.

Forget jail, hit him where it hurts: his pocket. Fine him big-time and every day he’s left hard up paying back that fine will teach him in future to think before he types. And give the proceeds to the person he offended.

Ditto all the other little jerks on twitter and other social media who think they can get away with being a bully.

He’s a shining example of Pan Juvenalis!

What’s so sad is he gets a following from so many females, but then I guess they are Pan Juvenalis too…

It wouldn’t be a joke if he actually carried out those threats though.

50. douglas clark

I don’t know if this is at all relevant, but there have been numerous cases of internet identities being carefully cultivated atavars with no actual resemblance to the person behind them. A frequent tactic is to claim some sort of tragic background, or to be unable to spell out the truth for fear of retribution.

It is attention grabbing behaviour, but it is based on creating a credible personality that is not your own.

This just looks like a more direct approach.

I wonder how many other death threats there are on Twitter, say over the last 24 hours. I am fairly confident it is not zero.

51. douglas clark

avatars, even.

52. Charlieman

@49. douglas clark: “I don’t know if this is at all relevant, but there have been numerous cases of internet identities being carefully cultivated atavars with no actual resemblance to the person behind them.”

In some exceptional cases, the Twitter accounts of otherwise little known politicians have allegedly been hijacked by lunatics determined to undermine the credibility of the owners by posting racist or homophobic comments.

if it is an avatar, it is singularly one dimensional! I wouldn’t insult the concept of an avatar, so maybe the word trollbot is more appropriate.

54. douglas clark

Charlieman,

Well, I have had my identity stolen, and I am just a loudmouth not even a minor politician.

It is the strangest thing.

You doubt yourself initially – could I have really been taken over by an alien and have written that? Fortunately, I had good friends, including the editor of this blog, who saw it for what it was.

Any subsequent comments that appear here purporting to be by me, may not be by me. How completely ridiculous is it to have to hand out a caveat emptor like that? Yet AFAIK, it still happens.

___________________________________________

Dissident,

You are probably right. But people put enormous effort into being someone they aren’t. See above.

Douglas

So it is a case of using your brain then! It is interesting to note that trollbots now use approx 10,000 conversational rules, so are much harder to spot. Do the twitter posts this OP are about count in that category?

That is why I said Pan Juvenalis earlier!

@11:

“Take a look back at his timeline- not just yesterday, but every day there are threats to kill, hurt, stab people. He even posted a threat to drop kick a pregnant woman, and a lengthy youtube threat to kill someone.”

Is he actually threatening to kill people? Is he actually threatening to ‘drop kick’ a pregnant woman? Do you actually think he is likely to do either of those things? No. So don’t say that he is making “threats”.

He was just a stupid kid posting stupid comments on Twitter. If he’s breaking Twitter’s rules then fine, ban him from it. But getting the police involved is ridiculous. What they don’t / don’t want to understand is that saying “I want to kill you” online to a complete stranger is a little different to saying it to someone’s face while holding a knife.

What they don’t / don’t want to understand is that saying “I want to kill you” online to a complete stranger is a little different to saying it to someone’s face while holding a knife.

How would you formulate that law, if you were in charge?

Would I have to be holding the knife at the time for the threat to someone’s face to count? What about if I told the person to their face that I was going home to get the knife? Would they need to wait until I showed up with one before this became a police matter?

What about if I’m making the death threats online to somebody I know? Or to a stranger whose address I know? Or indeed, a stranger whose address I don’t know but whose address I’m claiming to know?

Seriously, I’m all ears.

Alternatively, perhaps we could just accept that it’s illegal to make personal death threats to people, and that this is probably a reasonable constraint on online debate. YMMV, but I can usually get through an online discussion without making threats to kill my interlocutors.

I wonder how many other death threats there are on Twitter, say over the last 24 hours. I am fairly confident it is not zero.

“Most occurrences of this type of crime go unreported, therefore it’d be unreasonable to punish this chap just because he was one of the few unlucky enough to get caught”.

Perhaps you should become a defence barrister for rape trials.

60. the a&e charge nurse

[26] ‘I was on twitter at the time. He made a death threat BUT there were death threats made to him too so I wonder if those will be investigated. But the irony of it all is that the same mob who went after Rileyy_69 were making death threats towards the Japanese gymnastic team yesterday’ – that’s very interesting, Fran.

I do not use twitter but it sounds like half the twitter community are busy abusing or threatening to kill each other on a near hourly basis?
Do the police only follow up daily-mail based leads, or are mass arrests now inevitable?

Maybe one solution would be to issue a license, or undertake some form of psychological profiling before those exhibiting displaced forms of anger can be allowed on t’interweb.
After all it’s not as if such tests are not already being developed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj4aGzooQdk

I hope the little shit rots in jail

62. the a&e charge nurse

[60] our jails only have capacity for a 1,000 more crims – are you sure a custodial sentence is the best solution for an angry 17 year old?

Maybe we can use the cell occupied by the man who stole a bottle of evian?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/02/prison-population-reach-high_n_1125169.html

63. Chaise Guevara

@ 37 Shatterface

“I wouldn’t support prosecution over comments about Daley’s dad though I think Twitter would be well in their rights to suspend Rileyy’s accounts for that alone.”

Agreed – I’m sure Twitter has standard rules about acceptable behaviour and it’s got every right to enforce them.

“But how many cases have we seen where reporters dig into some killer’s Facebook, Twitter or YouTube account, find a shitload of rants, threats and other brainwrongery, and then ask why did nobody ask questions at the time? If the police didn’t ask questions when concerns are raised they’d be crucified.”

Well, that’s generally hindsight bias. Threats, yes, but I don’t think people should be arrested, spied on or questioned (except when pertinent to a case) merely for rants or “brainwongery”. That’s very close indeed to political oppression, e.g. when the police put out a leaflet saying anarchists are teh evulz and must be reported. I don’t agree with anarchists but I don’t think that the authorities can just declare them public enemies like that.

However, once a potential crime has been brought to the cops’ attention, obviously they have to look into it. People having a go at the police merely for doing that are missing the point that the police don’t know whether a crime has likely been committed UNTIL they’re looked into it. Hindsight bias again.

FYI, according to Metro the guy’s received a “harrassment warning” from the police, specifically over his tweets to Daley: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/906873-tom-daley-twitter-troll-gets-harassment-warning.

Does anyone know whether this is something official, like a caution, indicating those tweets are indeed considered criminal, or is it something informal that might just be “keep sending tweets like that and you might find yourself accused of harrassment”?

64. douglas clark

John B,

I am interested in this case for reasons that ought to be apparent to anyone.

There are no easy solutions to this type of behaviour. My point about using the criminal law in cases like this is that it would have to apply universally. Not just in cases which are of interest to the MSM.

It seems obvious to me that people treat twitter as if it was the same as normal conversation. What this idiot did would have been forgotten by his mates if he had said it in the pub in the hour before closing time. Because there is a permanent record – see above – we expect better standards?

Best of luck with locking up everyone whose tweets are offensive.

John B is spot on about this.

douglas,

It seems obvious to me that people treat twitter as if it was the same as normal conversation. What this idiot did would have been forgotten by his mates if he had said it in the pub in the hour before closing time. Because there is a permanent record – see above – we expect better standards?

Best of luck with locking up everyone whose tweets are offensive.

The tweets weren’t “merely offensive”, they could reasonably read as threats hence complaints and police involvement. How can the police know if it’s “normal conversation” or a genuine threat without looking into it?

My point about using the criminal law in cases like this is that it would have to apply universally.

Maybe a high profile case will make people think twice before tweeting things like “I’m going to kill you” and sending multiple nasty messages (possibly a ‘pattern of behaviour’) to a particular person.

66. the a&e charge nurse

[64] ‘How can the police know if it’s “normal conversation” or a genuine threat without looking into it?’ – they always have the Mail, or the green pen writers to steer them in the right direction.

Leaving aside the ‘freedom of speech’ issues – perhaps we need to pause for moment before criminalising tweeters, unless you are in favour of a highly selective application of the law.

Put another way, suppose it turns out there are thousands, or even tens of thousands responsible for similar tweet driven rants should they be investigated to – or do we simply turn a blind eye because such arrests would do little to increase the Mail’s circulation figures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBbQwxO8U8

a&e,

The Chambers tweet was obviously a joke born of frustration. Airport security staff and airport police didn’t think it was a credible threat. It shouldn’t have gone further than that. He shouldn’t have been arrested or prosecuted. He shouldn’t have been sacked.

Blackmail, threats, incitement of criminal offences and verbal or written harassment are forms of speech but we are not free to say them without legal consequences and the law has said so for many years before Twitter.

If someone writes “I’m going to kill you” to a person and there is a complaint to the police should the police look into it or not? If someone writes multiple messages of a nasty nature to a particular person over a period of time and someone makes a complaint to the police should the police look into it or not?

Do note I am not suggesting the tweeter should necessarily be put in prison. I happen to think a warning in this particular case is all this twat merits but it is not immediately obvious from his tweets, in contrast to Chambers’ tweet, that he is joking – or of sound mind.

John B @58 already skewered the silly suggestion that the police should either investigate all thousands of tweeters who write “I’m going to kill you” or none whatsoever.

The threats warrant investigation, you just cannot go around saying things like that.

69. the a&e charge nurse

[65] ‘The Chambers tweet was obviously a joke born of frustration’ – obvious to you and me perhaps, UKL but sadly not those in the legal world who have been busy persecuting him ever since – a little warning, perhaps of where this sort of stasi-esque mindset eventually leads to.

In the light of the Riley case it seems reasonable to ask if other twitter fruitcakes can expect the police to be knocking on their door, and not just tweeters either – if a member of the public should ever hear anybody foolish enough to utter the words ‘airport’ and ‘bomb’ in the same sentence, then presumably they too should be promptly investigated (since the medium is secondary to the message).

In the light of the Chambers debacle it seems we have now set the bar so high that formal investigation is required to determine the intentionality of certain utterances – otherwise how will we know the difference between one persons throw away line or another’s genuine incitement to mayhem.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/chambers-v-dpp.pdf

Yes – he deserved arrest.

Not for the Daley tweets which were vile enough, but for the despicable death threats further down his timeline.

Lock the idiot up for a bit. He obviously thought he was untouchable.

a&e,
If someone writes “I’m going to kill you” to a person and there is a complaint to the police should the police look into it or not? If someone writes multiple messages of a nasty nature to a particular person over a period of time and someone makes a complaint to the police should the police look into it or not?

Thanks, UKLiberty. It’s depressing the number of people who I’m charitably hoping haven’t read the effing thread.

73. the a&e charge nurse

[70] ‘If someone writes “I’m going to kill you” to a person and there is a complaint to the police should the police look into it or not? If someone writes multiple messages of a nasty nature to a particular person over a period of time and someone makes a complaint to the police should the police look into it or not?’ – Riley is no more a threat than Chambers – he is an idiot hiding behind the ‘nets anonymity, no more and no less.

To answer your question, ‘should the police look it’ – no, definitely not, at least until there is a specific complaint from an individual who feels threatened by these puerile outbursts – has there been any such complaint.

The pursuit of Chambers proves that the court are periodically guilty of breaking a butterfly’s wing on a wheel.

@72

at least until there is a specific complaint from an individual who feels threatened by these puerile outbursts – has there been any such complaint.

I’m not sure if you’ve followed any of the previous cases before, but given what normally occurs the answer to your question is most likely yes, there will have been. The users of twitter were practically falling over one another reporting Fabrice Muamba’s taunter to the police, do you think they will have demonstrated restraint upon Tom Daley being insulted, threatened and themselves threatened?

Besides threatening someone in order to intimidate and silence their criticism is an assault on their free speech as is. Since we’re very keen on upholding and maintaining free speech, footing Riley Junior up the arse with the full power of the state is the least we can do for such a lofty ideal.

75. the a&e charge nurse

[73] ‘The users of twitter were practically falling over one another reporting Fabrice Muamba’s taunter to the police’ – resulting in Liam Stacey receiving a custodial sentence (hooray, another young person’s life messed up).

Mind you the twateratti are unlikely to be satisfied until every last bad person has been visited by the stasi.
Problem is there are so many of them – do you know if retrospective investigations are possible – sounds like we might need a special unit to provide 24/7 surveillance given all the shit that goes down on t’web?

A&e,

To answer your question, ‘should the police look it’ – no, definitely not, at least until there is a specific complaint from an individual who feels threatened by these puerile outbursts

So you agree the police should look into it someone complains to them they feel threatened. Great.

77. the a&e charge nurse

[75] ‘So you agree the police should look into it someone complains to them they feel threatened’ – indeed, but the stasi may have their work cut out because there are so many bad people on the net pumping out daily bilge.

Impulsive rants from annoying 17 year olds are especially terrifying, even if they haven’t got a clue who the person behind the avatar is.

78. Charlieman

When a drunk is collapsed on a street bench on a Friday night, proclaiming that s/he is dying, the police do not ignore that person. If the officers are responsible, they conduct a check to ascertain that the individual is pissed rather than ill (reliability of this check is far from concrete) and roll the individual over so that s/he does not die from vomit inhalation.

When the police are asked to consider “threats” delivered over the internet, they have to conduct a preliminary investigation: talk to people and look at the digital evidence. They are almost compelled to do it.

Note different stages in the police process: talk to somebody, arrest somebody, prosecute somebody. There are three distinct stages for the police to determine whether criminal prosecution might become necessary. There are three distinct stages for the “somebody” and legal advisor to work things out with the police.

Twitter nonsense should and could be settled with minimal police intervention, for the most part. The Paul Chambers case required a sensible chat about how his “threat” may have been understood by others. The Daley idiot is more challenging; I don’t whether he is dangerous and I don’t think that many people are qualified to judge his mental state on the basis of his tweets.

a&e, how are the police to know if the guy is 17 (whatever difference that makes) without looking into it? Do they consult the tea leaves? What’s the process do you think?

80. Chaise Guevara

@ 77 Charlieman

“The Paul Chambers case required a sensible chat about how his “threat” may have been understood by others.”

I would say the Chambers case required looking at the tweet, observing that it was a joke, and doing nothing else except to say that nothing else would be done. Chambers literally didn’t even need a talking-to, although perhaps whoever decided to creatively misinterpret him could have done with a word about wasting everyone’s time. But otherwise I agree (indeed your post is mainly comprised of correct facts so my agreement is neither here nor there).

81. the a&e charge nurse

[78] ‘What’s the process do you think?’ – the same applied to Chambers – the agonising legal process is available @68.

Do you know if the police can investigate old tweets – there must be a mountain of bile to get through – we have no idea what the intentions are – everybody must be investigated.

82. douglas clark

ukliberty @ 64,

Just because you agree with John B doesn’t entitle you to say he is ‘spot on’.

He agrees with you, you agree with him. ‘Spot on’ is just a rubbish bit of trolling.

The issue is a lot more complicated than the “wham bam thank you mam” that you and John B are putting up as an arguement. Guilty, maybe, but what of others who you wish to exonerate or just ignore, as if they didn’y exist?

For absence of doubt, the question is this:

Should it be the case that certain forms of speech should be prohibited and who should decide what is acceptable and what is not?

You both appear willing to surrender free speech to legal censure.

As if this is the only form of censure that would meet the needs of a civil society.

Free speech -v- censorship / criminalisation..

That is the utterly ridiculous dichotomy you are trying to reduce this discussion to. Try this on:

_____________________________________________

There are threats that mean something and there are threats that are just stupid.

Lets examine that a bit further, shall we?

What would you make of this if I said it?

“Emily Thornberry MP: a very stupid and thoroughly unpleasant person who should be severely punched in the cunt, and then thrown into the sea.” ?

Well, I didn’t say it. here is the source:

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/10/sensible-women-and-fucking-stupid-women.html

Apparently the somewhat sad person that runs that site can suggest, (well, what?), you decide. If it were highlighted in, say, the Daily Mail, what fun we could all have arguing whether it is a death threat or not.

For the absence of doubt I am 99.9% certain that it is just a stupid comment by an incredibly stupid libertarian. It has no real intent to carry out.

Are we going to take that and just assume it was a jolly jape by a libertarian or we going to treat that as just as serious as the case at hand?

Frankly, neither of you have thought this through.

A&ECN: if you want to go through a mountain of old tweets to identify ones that you believe are illegal threats, and report them to the cops, then you can, and they will investigate them, because that is their job.

84. the a&e charge nurse

[81] ‘if you want to go through a mountain of old tweets to identify ones that you believe are illegal threats, and report them to the cops, then you can, and they will investigate them, because that is their job’ – indeed, I’m sure coppers can smell an easy score and nailing impulsive teenagers, or even somebody brave enough to crack a silly joke about an airport will soon boost the crime stats.

Mis-tweeting can mean jail in our culture – how long before a light goes on in the publics mind before they realise an injudicious comment can be used to get at somebody.

@82 Not being funny, but it’s ‘the public’ that has brought this all about. Not the police, not ‘the state’, not Labour or the Tories or the Libdems – the general public. They also know full well what they’ve created, they’re happy with it, they are perfectly fine with ‘trolls who abuse our twitter’ being punished by the law.
And they do try to witchsmeller pursuivant one another too.
The main advice I can give is, if you don’t like the chance of being jailed for saying something off-colour once in your life, then don’t have a twitter account.
Simples.

86. the a&e charge nurse

[83] ‘The main advice I can give is, if you don’t like the chance of being jailed for saying something off-colour once in your life, then don’t have a twitter account – Simples’ – OK, but isn’t that sort of advice spookily similar to the sort West Mercia police were offering to women to avoid the risk of being raped.

You seem to be saying people should be frightened of making silly, or unpleasant comments on t’web because it might end up with them being punished – if the law says people Chambers can be punished for making a joke, then the law is wrong in my opinion.

A&e,

the agonising legal process is available @68.

What I’m trying to get at is that we don’t have to choose between (A) police ignore complaint or (B) the person is prosecuted. There are actions that can be taken between those extremes. Charlieman is spot on here (my emphasis):

When the police are asked to consider “threats” delivered over the internet, they have to conduct a preliminary investigation: talk to people and look at the digital evidence. They are almost compelled to do it.

Note different stages in the police process: talk to somebody, arrest somebody, prosecute somebody

Do you know if the police can investigate old tweets – there must be a mountain of bile to get through – we have no idea what the intentions are – everybody must be investigated.

John B skewered this @58 and @81.

Mis-tweeting can mean jail in our culture – how long before a light goes on in the publics mind before they realise an injudicious comment can be used to get at somebody.

Chambers was prosecuted under s127 of the Communications Act 2003 – so that particular law is about nine years old – hopefully future prosecutors will keep in mind the High Court judgement. Various kinds of speech were made statutory criminal offences long before that: threats (1988); verbal or written harassment (1994, 1997); indecent or offensive message with intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient (1984). We are talking about laws that are up to three decades old – I’m sure some of them were statutory or common law offences long before that. But you might argue that people don’t know the law – OK. But surely most people instinctively understand that they shouldn’t harass people or address specific recipients with messages that read like threats:

“I’m going to find you and I’m going to drown you”
“want me to hire a shotgun and come to your house cause i will”
“I’m gonna find out where you live and torture your fucking house with a lighter”

[83] ‘The main advice I can give is, if you don’t like the chance of being jailed for saying something off-colour once in your life, then don’t have a twitter account – Simples’ – OK, but isn’t that sort of advice spookily similar to the sort West Mercia police were offering to women to avoid the risk of being raped.

No, because the tweeter isn’t the victim. Cylux is saying, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.

f the law says people Chambers can be punished for making a joke, then the law is wrong in my opinion.

Well, hopefully the High Court has made it clear that shouldn’t happen again.

89. Chaise Guevara

@ Cylux

“The main advice I can give is, if you don’t like the chance of being jailed for saying something off-colour once in your life, then don’t have a twitter account.
Simples.”

If you don’t want to be jailed for criticising the Glorious Regime of the Generalissimo, shut up and wave a flag like everyone else.

Simples.

90. Chaise Guevara

@ 86 UKliberty

“No, because the tweeter isn’t the victim. Cylux is saying, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.”

Only if you accept that saying something off-colour should be a criminal offence. Frankly I’m surprised that you’re taking this stance. Jail for zombie baby jokes?

If the tweeter is done purely for being off-colour they are very much the victim in any place that values free speech and dislikes opportunistic bullying.

91. the a&e charge nurse

“I’m going to find you and I’m going to drown you”
“want me to hire a shotgun and come to your house cause i will”
“I’m gonna find out where you live and torture your fucking house with a lighter”.

None of the cases we have discussed – Stacey, Riley, or Chambers fall into the category you highlight.

Riley has been pursued because of his rant toward Tom Daley.
He may have made ill considered remarks after this (none of which he acted on) but as far as I know none of the recipients of these messages have complained to the police about it – although in the light of the media storm it may be that the tweeters have suddenly become very frightened and feel this fear can only be assuaged by ruining another young persons life?

I agree with Chaise.

92. the a&e charge nurse

[86] ‘No, because the tweeter isn’t the victim’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tn2EhGK5ok

93. the a&e charge nurse

@83 On the web? Nope. Just on social networking sites, because of the other users, and not because of some insidious governmental organisation.
I can’t help but notice that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of these cases originate from Facebook and Twitter rather than the comments sections of news sites or blogs.

a&e,

“I’m going to find you and I’m going to drown you”
“want me to hire a shotgun and come to your house cause i will”
“I’m gonna find out where you live and torture your fucking house with a lighter”.

None of the cases we have discussed – Stacey, Riley, or Chambers fall into the category you highlight.

In fact, those are quotes from rileyy_69s timeline – the first (“drown you”) addressed to Daley, although it appears to have been deleted since then.

Riley has been pursued because of his rant toward Tom Daley.
He may have made ill considered remarks after this (none of which he acted on) but as far as I know none of the recipients of these messages have complained to the police about it – although in the light of the media storm it may be that the tweeters have suddenly become very frightened and feel this fear can only be assuaged by ruining another young persons life?

I don’t know why the police investigated rileyy_69 – I haven’t seen a statement from them about it. He came to the world’s attention because of the comment about Daley’s dad, but I doubt the police gave him a harassment warning / order just for that. Certainly on its own it wouldn’t constitute harassment – there has to be a ‘pattern of behaviour’ – but he addressed lots of other messages to Daley over a short period of time. Then again, Daley isn’t the only person he abused.

a&e,

[86] ‘No, because the tweeter isn’t the victim’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tn2EhGK5ok

I’m not talking about merely offensive comments.

Chaise Guevara,

Only if you accept that saying something off-colour should be a criminal offence. Frankly I’m surprised that you’re taking this stance. Jail for zombie baby jokes?

If the tweeter is done purely for being off-colour they are very much the victim in any place that values free speech and dislikes opportunistic bullying.

I don’t think people should be jailed for merely offensive comments or off-colour jokes.( I don’t know why you mention zombie baby jokes, they don’t appear to be mentioned or alluded to in this thread.)

But I am not talking about merely offensive comments or off-colour jokes. I am talking about what (as an example) rileyy_69 tweeted in addition to the comment mentioning Daley’s dad.

And I don’t think rileyy_69 should be jailed. The harrassment warning seems a proportionate response. But I do think that if there is a complaint made to the police that “someone threatened me” or “someone harassed me” the police ought to look into it.

97. Chaise Guevara

@ ukliberty

“He came to the world’s attention because of the comment about Daley’s dad, but I doubt the police gave him a harassment warning / order just for that.”

Metro says the police gave him a warning for the tweets to Daley:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/906873-tom-daley-twitter-troll-gets-harassment-warning

However, I’m not sure whether “warning” there refers to anything official, and Metro might have its wires crossed.

98. Chaise Guevara

@ UKL

“I don’t think people should be jailed for merely offensive comments or off-colour jokes.( I don’t know why you mention zombie baby jokes, they don’t appear to be mentioned or alluded to in this thread.)

But I am not talking about merely offensive comments or off-colour jokes. I am talking about what (as an example) rileyy_69 tweeted in addition to the comment mentioning Daley’s dad.”

Read comments 83, 84, and 86.

83: Cylux appears to be saying that if people get punished for off-colour remarks, that’s their fault for making those remarks on Twitter. I suppose he could be offering “don’t be tasteless on Twitter” as genuine pragmatic advice without judging the speaker, but it doesn’t seem likely from the way it’s phrased (“simples”).

84: A&E rightly points out that this is victim-blaming.

86: You say the tweeter isn’t the victim.

I don’t see any way of interpreting that other than you saying that making off-colour remarks should be a criminal offence, regardless of whether you think that offence merits a custodial sentence. I’d put money on wires being crossed somewhere along the line, though.

Zombie baby jokes were just one example of an off-colour remark.

84: A&E rightly points out that this is victim-blaming.

I thought A&E was saying ‘advice to a potential offending tweeter to not tweet offensive remarks to mitigate risk of them being prosecuted’ was analogous to ‘advice to women to not get shitfaced to mitigate risk of them being raped’. (The former is the offender, the latter is the victim, no?)

I think I’ve been pretty clear since @25 what kind of messages I’ve been talking about.

For the record, I don’t think offensive comments should be a criminal offence (although it appears that some kinds of offensive comments are legally off-limits – I don’t know of any examples.)

Metro says the police gave him a warning for the tweets to Daley:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/906873-tom-daley-twitter-troll-gets-harassment-warning

Yes – multiple messages, iow a possible ‘pattern of behaviour’ that constiutes harassment, about thirty messages within four hours, some of them minutes apart, not the sole message about Daley’s dad, including ““I’m going to find you and I’m going to drown you”.

100. the a&e charge nurse

The ‘threat’ to drown TD epitomises the fantastical nature of our angry young tweeter, and the lunacy of treating his utterances as anything more than a sad young bloke carried away with the immediacy and reactivity of t’web.

What on earth was Riley actually going to do – attack TD in the olympic pool after following him into the water while performing his own reverse somersault and pike with a D.D of 4.2.

If Riley is not an inveterate doggy paddler I’d be very surprised.

@96 To be fair, at this point, given the coverage these cases have consistently been given, it IS their fault if they run a cropper of near decades-old laws when mouthing off on twitter and Facebook. Hell it’s even in the t&c’s that both platforms will happily hand over everything the police ask them for regarding your account should you come under investigation. They also notably have a very lax moderation system, thus encouraging users to self-regulate one another, with varied results.

Plus let’s not beat about the bush, Riley Junior was making specific threats directed toward specific people, it’s in a league way above racist tweeting.

102. Chaise Guevara

@ 97 ukl

“I thought A&E was saying ‘advice to a potential offending tweeter to not tweet offensive remarks to mitigate risk of them being prosecuted’ was analogous to ‘advice to women to not get shitfaced to mitigate risk of them being raped’. (The former is the offender, the latter is the victim, no?)

I think I’ve been pretty clear since @25 what kind of messages I’ve been talking about. ”

I’m responding in line with more recent comments. But like I said, I think this is crossed wires: if the tweets are justly illegal then obviously the tweeter is the offender, but that doesn’t seem to be what Cylux was talking about. “Off-colour comments” includes most of Frankie Boyle’s material, for example. Someone tweeting a Frankie Boyle joke should not get a warning from the cops.

“For the record, I don’t think offensive comments should be a criminal offence (although it appears that some kinds of offensive comments are legally off-limits – I don’t know of any examples.)”

Agreed, unless the offensiveness combines with other factors to make it harrassment.

“Yes – multiple messages, iow a possible ‘pattern of behaviour’ that constiutes harassment, about thirty messages within four hours, some of them minutes apart, not the sole message about Daley’s dad, including ““I’m going to find you and I’m going to drown you”.”

Did he send thirty messages including that threatening one to Daley? If so, fair play. I was under the impression that he’d only sent a couple of messages to Daley, and that they were offensive but non-threatening – in which case I wouldn’t see any basis for him being warned purely for the messages sent to Daley, as reported by Metro.

My suspicion was that he’d been warned over threats sent to other users, but Metro had gotten confused and assumed the warning referred to the messages sent to Daley.

103. Chaise Guevara

@ 99 Cylux

“To be fair, at this point, given the coverage these cases have consistently been given, it IS their fault if they run a cropper of near decades-old laws when mouthing off on twitter and Facebook.”

Generally, sure, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the law is wrong. And would you say that what happened to Chambers was his fault?

“Plus let’s not beat about the bush, Riley Junior was making specific threats directed toward specific people, it’s in a league way above racist tweeting.”

I wasn’t talking about Riley, I was talking about your general remark implying that tasteless comments should be met with punishment under the law.

a&e,

What on earth was Riley actually going to do

I don’t know without being psychic or talking to him.

What on earth was John Hinckley Jr. actually going to do?

Chaise,

Did he send thirty messages including that threatening one to Daley? If so, fair play. I was under the impression that he’d only sent a couple of messages to Daley, and that they were offensive but non-threatening – in which case I wouldn’t see any basis for him being warned purely for the messages sent to Daley, as reported by Metro.

No, I made a terrible counting error there; it’s actually 13.

Riley did not deserve to be arrested. Personally, I’m appalled at those who believe a 17 year old teenager (or anyone for that matter) deserves to be arrested for being a jerk. I’m a firm believer that it’s everyone’s God given right to be a jerk (if they so choose to be).

I haven’t read all the posts, but according to what I have read, those who support the concept of State intervention for “mis-speak” argue that “State intervention/arrest was justified because a threat to kill was made”. Let’s examine this further…

Under Section 16 of the “Offences Against the Person Act of 1861″, it is
a criminal offence to make a threat to kill. However, the test for what actually constitutes a threat is context and intent. If someone says “I’m going to blow your head off with my father’s M1 carbine”, and the police search their house and find a photo of the would-be victim, a map of his home and area, an itinerary of his daily movements, an M1 carbine and ammunition, then the threat can be considered real.

What frightens me is: Rileyy_69 was not arrested because he made threats to kill (be it by drowning, shooting, stabbing or whatever). He was arrested under the “Malicious Communications Act of 1988″. Within this piece of legislation, vague wording that’s open to interpretation is used that could make just about anything you write/say a criminal offence. For example: “…indecent or grossly offensive communication likely to cause distress or anxiety…”. In other words, it is now illegal to insult and/or offend someone. The right to be a jerk has been legislated away, and a British citizen’s ability to freely express their ideas, opinions and views (even in 140 characters or less) is extremely limited.

The investigation in this particular incident should have been as follows:

a) Daley calls the police, says he fears for his life due to death threats.
b) Police spend 10 minutes investigating the tweets/retweets.
c) A test is applied – is there intent in regards to said threats?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and risk being arrested for stating an opinion, but it is my opinion that at this point, anyone with a sound and reasonable mind would have dismissed said threats as nothing more that some kid shooting off at the mouth. It should have been taken in context, and common sense should have been applied (hands up anyone who still remembers what “common sense” is)!

Anyone who purports that “Freedom of Speech” is not the issue here is not only wrong, they’re also either ignorant or disingenuous – or both (sorry if I offended anyone, please do not track me down and arrest me too).

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

That is all.

@101 ‘Should be met with’? No.
‘Will be met with’? Yes.
That’s the current situation, the fact I steer well clear of twitter and Facebook (regardless of knowing full well I wouldn’t post owt likely to draw ire) should tell you everything you need to regarding what I think should happen.
I don’t agree with what goes on, so I don’t sign up to be a part of it.

@103 even.

109. the a&e charge nurse

[104] there is no meaningful comparison with Hinkley’s behaviour.

Hinkley targeted Jodie Foster’s home and took to leaving poems and letters in her mailbox – he telephoned her at least twice (in other words he knew where JF lived, had visited her home, and had the means to directly contact her).

Crucially, there were clues that Hinkley’s obsession with JF was enduring, and his actions both premeditated and organised.

Now contrast all of this with Riley’s knee jerk response to a moment of TV disappointment – the impromptu, and very public nature of his outburst demonstrates that Riley was barely able to manage even a few moments of reflection.

If Riley really is UK’s answer to John Hinckley Jr – would he have left a twitter trail, as well as details of his aquatic hit all the way to his own front door?

In fact given the wide ranging nature of threats made by Riley surely he would have needed a mini-death camp to process the long list of twitterati who had fallen foul of him in the wake of his assessment of Tom Daley’s Olympic performance?

110. Chaise Guevara

@ 107 Cylux

“I don’t agree with what goes on, so I don’t sign up to be a part of it.”

Fair enough. I myself only use Twitter because I need it to log into a browser-based webgame. I actually get in-game benefits for tweeting adverts to nobody.

111. Chaise Guevara

@ UKL

“No, I made a terrible counting error there; it’s actually 13.”

Still, I suppose that’s approaching harrassment and justifies a cop saying “stop it” while waving an admonishing finger. I was under the impression that he’s been warned under a policy of “if you say something and someone else doesn’t like it, that’s harrassment”.

112. douglas clark

This has been quite interesting.

No-one is, apparently, offended whatsoever by the quote I provided in 82.

What’s it to be boys? Is it as bad, not quite as bad, less bad – or what?

For those of you that just lurve policing free speech, then there would be only one answer. For those that hate da man, then there is only one answer for you too. The fact that they are diametrically opposed is neither here not there.

But complete silence?

Folk around here do not like anything that intrudes on their fight. However mis-informed and partisan it might be.

If you cannot answer, comprehensively, with how you would deal with that case, then you are simply grandstanding.

douglas,

What would you make of this if I said it?

“Emily Thornberry MP: a very stupid and thoroughly unpleasant person who should be severely punched in the cunt, and then thrown into the sea.” ?

Apparently the somewhat sad person that runs that site can suggest, (well, what?), you decide. If it were highlighted in, say, the Daily Mail, what fun we could all have arguing whether it is a death threat or not.

There is nothing about it that suggests to me a death threat. It does not read “I’m going to find you and drown you.”

114. Chaise Guevara

@ 112 douglas clark

“But complete silence?

Folk around here do not like anything that intrudes on their fight. However mis-informed and partisan it might be.

If you cannot answer, comprehensively, with how you would deal with that case, then you are simply grandstanding.”

Or alternatively, there’s a lot of people talking on here, some of them are into some in-depth rows I mean discussions with other users, and it just happened nobody picked up on your post. Y’know, rather than us all lacking a depth of intellectual honesty that is embodied in the paragon that is you.

To answer the question: I feel about the same as UKL here, it’s not actually a threat. Now, the obvious next step is to ask whether we’d feel the same about someone standing on a soapbox and declaring to an audience “Members of the hated group X should be dragged from their homes and beaten in the street!”

Now, I’d say that was different, even though they’re both phrased in the same way. I think the difference is that my example sounds like it’s intended as genuine incitement to violence and might be acted upon by listeners, whereas “punched in the cunt and thrown into the sea” is obviously not meant to be taken literally. This does create a grey area, of course.

@114. Chaise Guevara:

I think you’re off track:

” …it’s not actually a threat…”

Whether or not it’s a threat is irrelevant. Rileyy_69 was arrested under the “Malicious Communications Act 1988″, where it is a criminal offence to post something that’s indecent or grossly offensive and likely to cause distress or anxiety. [112 Douglas Clark] presents a valid point – the same rule of law could (should?) be applied to the website he mentions for it’s remarks about the female MP.

According to the Malicious Communications Act 1988, it is effectively illegal (a criminal offence) to insult/offend someone.

Care to discuss?

116. Chaise Guevara

@ Vanessa Deagan

“I think you’re off track”

Nope.

“According to the Malicious Communications Act 1988, it is effectively illegal (a criminal offence) to insult/offend someone.”

You’re interpreting it over-liberally. While words like “grossly” are subjective, the law as intepreted in courts will not criminalise people for most insults.

But regarding me being off-track or not: Douglas’s question was not “Is this message illegal?” but “Do you think this message should be illegal?” To which I answer “no”, for the reasons I set out above. I don’t see how I can be off-track in giving an answer to a question that asks for a personal opinion.

“Care to discuss?”

Sure. The law should be clarified so that simple insults and bad-taste jokes cannot be construed as illegal. For a remark to be illegal it should have to be a serious-sounding threat, part of a harassment campaign, slanderous, or similar.

Chaise, douglas,

re “silence”: douglas’s comment @82 didn’t appear on my screen until after Chaise’s comment @111 appeared. douglas, there is something about the LC comment system where posts sometimes seem to be held in a queue for ages and then released.

some of them are into some in-depth rows I mean discussions with other users

:)

Vanessa,

Whether or not it’s a threat is irrelevant. Rileyy_69 was arrested under the “Malicious Communications Act 1988?, where it is a criminal offence to post something that’s indecent or grossly offensive and likely to cause distress or anxiety. [112 Douglas Clark] presents a valid point – the same rule of law could (should?) be applied to the website he mentions for it’s remarks about the female MP.

According to the Malicious Communications Act 1988, it is effectively illegal (a criminal offence) to insult/offend someone.

Care to discuss?

Did the Devil send it to Thornberry? No he didn’t. Therefore MCA 1998 doesn’t apply.

Whether or not it’s a threat is irrelevant.

Have you read the MCA 1998? The word “threat” is in section 1.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

douglas,

The issue is a lot more complicated than the “wham bam thank you mam” that you and John B are putting up as an arguement. Guilty, maybe, but what of others who you wish to exonerate or just ignore, as if they didn’y exist?

I don’t understand the second sentence.

For absence of doubt, the question is this:

Should it be the case that certain forms of speech should be prohibited and who should decide what is acceptable and what is not?

You both appear willing to surrender free speech to legal censure.

Do you think people should be free to blackmail, threaten, incite murder or harass people? If you do think they should be free to do such things at least you are consistent about “free speech”, but if you don’t think they should be free to do such things then you agree “certain forms of speech should be prohibited”.

So that leads on to what “forms of speech should be prohibited” and “who should decide”. Well, “who should decide” seems to be the easy question: our legislators (Parliament) make laws about the general case (e.g. “any person who sends to another person… a threat… is guilty of an offence”), and then we have the police who respond to specific cases, prosecutors (e.g. the CPS in England and Wales) who decide whether or not to prosecute in a specific case, and the courts who (1) find this particular person not guilty or guilty and (2) often clarify what the law means where it might be unclear and set a precedent for the criminal justice system to heed in the future.

If you disagree with that in principle then I’m interested to hear your alternative to democracy (because that’s how democracies work) and how in your utopia lawmaking would be done and how individual cases would be investigated, prosecuted etc.

The harder question is what “forms of speech should be prohibited”, and I’m not really sure how to answer in the general case. But ISTM that the prohibitions of blackmail, threats, incitement of murder and harassment aren’t terrible infringements on the freedom of speech that we simply mustn’t stand for. And I have said several times in this thread that I don’t think mere offence should be criminalised.

@ 116. Chaise Guevara:

Thanks for your reply, very interesting. In regards to being “off track”, I’m simply pointing out that everyone seems to be focusing on the “threat” aspect rather than the “grossly offensive” aspect (Rileyy_69 was arrested for the latter). I just wanted to confirm that this fact wouldn’t alter your opinion.

@ 82. douglas clark:

In regards to the comment left about the MP, while I do not find it threatening, I certainly find it grossly offensive (it made me wince reading it). In the case “Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) v. Collins (Respondent)” the closing judgement included:

“What matters is whether reasonable persons in our society would find it grossly offensive”.

I find this somewhat disturbing as “reasonable” is extremely subjective. It also plays to the “mob mentality” which I find relevant in this Daley case. After all, it was an angry mob that was set on Rileyy_69 (by Daley) like a tsunami with vile threats to kill, maim and torture him, completely ignoring Rileyy_69′s apologies because they (the angry mob) had “…right on their side…”. Would those who joined the angry digital mob be considered “reasonable persons”?

Anyway, back to the comments about the MP: in my humble opinion I find the comment grossly offensive, as I’m sure the MP herself would if she read them. If she were to complain (or if any member of the public were to complain), I’m sure she’d have a pretty strong case in the eyes of the law.

My personal opinion about the issue is that the State has gone to far with these laws that seek to eradicate rudeness and (grossly) offensive insults from society. We have created an environment where those of “sound and reasonable minds” have to think twice before they say or write something for fear of the State arresting them.

While I find the comment about the female MP grossly offensive, I would like to think I live in a country where even indecent people who are angry about something are at liberty to express their anger (even if it offends and causes stress/anxiety).

I’m simply pointing out that everyone seems to be focusing on the “threat” aspect rather than the “grossly offensive” aspect (Rileyy_69 was arrested for the latter).

Please cite.

122. Chaise Guevara

@ 120 Vanessa

“I’m simply pointing out that everyone seems to be focusing on the “threat” aspect rather than the “grossly offensive” aspect (Rileyy_69 was arrested for the latter).”

They do tend to get conflated. Anecdotally, I’d say one of the problems here is that, in individual cases, a lot of people judge the outcome based on “Do I think he had it coming?” rather than “Do I think their punishment falls under a reasonable legal framework that I would be happy to see applied more broadly?”

It is my opinion that the State has gone to far with this, and I’m certainly concerned about such powers to arrest and detain a British citizen based on him/her shooting off at the mouth online.

Firstly, was it ever established that Ripleyy_69 even knew that Daley’s father had passed away a year ago? From what I’ve read, he did not.

Secondly, if the authorities thought for a moment that Ripleyy_69 was serious about his threats, they would have to conclude that he had built a mini death camp somewhere (so many people to kill).

Thirdly, I think the vast majority who support Daley’s arrest watch too many movies and believe that the “bad guy” reveals the details of his/her sinister plans (on Twitter of all places) which enables the good guys to prevent it from happening. He would have got away with it if it too if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

Fourthly, if Rileyy_69 is charged, will those who made similar or worse threats against him also be hunted down, arrested and charged? Surely when we’re talking about the application of the rule of law, it applies to everyone equally, right?

Fifthly, how is this going to work in terms of jurisdiction? Does this mean all countries will have to align their laws to the UK’s so, for example, if someone in Russia (where they have a written constitution that prohibits Russian citizens being extradited) posts a malicious communication the long arm of the DPP will be able to reach out and grab ‘em?

For a country that’s supposed to be a bastion of democracy and justice, all I see is the Nanny State getting stronger and stronger. Common sense just doesn’t seem to be that…. common. You have the Data Communications Bill (soon to be Act) allowing the State to monitor all your communications (who you communicate with, and the websites you visit), the Public Order Act making it illegal to cause alarm, harassment or distress in public, the Malicious Communications Act making it illegal to threaten or grossly offend someone. It would be much easier if the State told you what you could do – it would be much shorter, less complicated.

If you want to enact something that would benefit the country, how about this: make pre-election promises legally binding!

End of rant.

124. douglas clark

I am sorry not to have got back to this thread sooner, working for a living does that for you.

It was, perhaps, unfair to take a chunk out of the ‘Devils’ Kitchen’ and hold it up as an example of what passes as ‘reasonable comment’ on the internet. On the other hand, it is an example of what passes for comment on some sections of the internet. Does anyone disagree? That was what the brain dead moron said. It is a direct quote from his own web page. Yet most of you just avoid it.

Yyou prefer to stick with what is a clear piece of trolling, whether you see it as such, or not. It is as plain as the noses on your faces that you react to what you are told to react to. Something in the media, jump up and down. and spit shit. Something not in the media? Well, it never happened.

“Oh yeah,” I here you cry, “Someone has been pulled to task on t’internet.” Lets all just jump up and down on him, for he is an evil and inadequate person who we, superior beings that we are, can look down on and him and call on Lord God Almighty and send him to shame and perdition forever.

Whatever.

Well…………….

Your complete failure to apply the same standards to ‘The Devils Kitchen’ suggest that you haven’t a clue. There are bad things said all over the internet.

We would all be shocked.

We should all get over it.

Or you should prosecute me for saying what I have said here.

As it is probably inflammatory to tell folk they are complete, utter, hypoctires.

125. douglas clark

I expect I will next be attacked by the spelling police.

It ought to have been ‘Hypocrites’ ,

After all, a spelling mistake would be more important that being right?

Which I have, sadly, the advantage of being………..

@ 58 John B

Did anyone receiving these messages from a random, angry 17 year old over Twitter actually think like he was going to find them and kill them? No.

My point with the person approaching you in the street with a knife is there is a legitimate threat of violence from verbal threat. To be honest, the example works without a knife – if someone threatens to kill you in person it’s different to a random person on the internet. You may argue that it’s just as serious, but it IS different, and the law should treat it with different considerations as a result.

Obviously violent threats made over the internet to people you know are different. It’s clear I’m only talking about threats made to ‘random’ people who you have no other connection to (and therefore, there isn’t a danger of real violence from the verbal threat)

127. the a&e charge nurse

Oh, look, the Ruskies are trying to outdo us for insane court cases – ‘The trial of ‘Pussy Riot’, jailed since March after performing a “punk prayer” against Vladimir Putin in Moscow’s main cathedral, has been about more than the charges brought against them – formally, hooliganism motivated by religious hatred’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/03/pussy-riot-trial-russia

The threshold for investigations is being lowered – it seems everybody is suspect nowadays ………. if you look hard enough.

I think I agree with the consensus, which is that while the original Tweet doesn’t warrant any sort of police involvement, all the death threats and promises of violence probably do.

129. Christopher

judging by some pf the comments @riley69 has made it sounds like he’s on the verge of some kind of breakdown, we should have the guy locked up on the mental health act before he goes on a killing rampage

130. Christopher

judging by some of the comments @riley69 has made it sounds like he’s on the verge of some kind of breakdown, we should have the guy locked up on the mental health act before he goes on a killing rampage


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Does Tom Daley's Twitter troll deserve arrest? http://t.co/slTd7hVY

  2. sunny hundal

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  3. Binita Mehta

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  4. Billy Bowden

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  5. Noorulann Shahid

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  6. Siouxfire ?

    @stebax You know after having read @sunny_hundal's link, I'm thinking the lad has issues. http://t.co/0Sc6yNEi

  7. Louise Brown

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  8. Zoe O'Connell

    LibCon has the tweets in question. (Warning: Contains Sunny Hundal) http://t.co/ZXJAVW4F

  9. Jason Brickley

    Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve arrest? http://t.co/WOfIkk85

  10. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve arrest? http://t.co/My5Jqz6g

  11. London 2012

    @helenlewis @alexhern so here's some screen grabs… http://t.co/oBGFieA8 via @sunny_hundal

  12. London 2012

    El tuit por el que BBC e Indie dicen se arrestó al chico se ve moderado en comparación con esta versión http://t.co/oBGFieA8 #Londres2012

  13. Ragnhild

    RT @sunny_hundal Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/9ire67BI

  14. Lloyd Sparkes

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  15. Snidey

    @LordLindley some of it is here > http://t.co/fBfMiVV0

  16. AndreaUrbanFox ©

    RT @snidey_UK @ivorsawbottom read his other comments http://t.co/8cYfKsVq << Nasty comments but an arrestable offence? No sure.

  17. Mark Wilson

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  18. Mark Wilson

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  19. Geoff Dunham

    @bobbyllew a sample of what he said is at http://t.co/zciUIrCI

  20. Alexander Pankhurst

    RT @sunny_hundal: Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/VsHrhYsC

  21. Daya Mutunhu

    RT @sunny_hundal: Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/VsHrhYsC

  22. Lee Chalmers

    RT @libcon: Does Tom Daley's Twitter troll deserve arrest? http://t.co/hirB81VD <Yes, they are hate filled, threaten violence.

  23. Simon

    @tensqueegal @bl0ke Some of the exchange for 'posterity' at http://t.co/CvT8FLfw Kid's an arse, but should cops be involved? I dunno.

  24. Dick Dolby

    @tensqueegal @bl0ke Some of the exchange for 'posterity' at http://t.co/CvT8FLfw Kid's an arse, but should cops be involved? I dunno.

  25. Sarah Morgan

    “@sunny_hundal: Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/AY8tKtiV” #conflicted

  26. McDave

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  27. Threadbare Panda

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  28. Gary Banham

    This seems very heavy-handed: RT @libcon: Does Tom Daley's Twitter troll deserve arrest? http://t.co/o7oC1j6b

  29. It's The Sarge

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  30. David Knight

    @faitaru he did go over the top in this retweets (see http://t.co/gCQGw0Hy) but I doubt he will be charged more likely cautioned

  31. Robin Renton

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  32. Karen Bryan

    @benfenton Don't know if anyone sent it, but some of the tweets have been recorded for posterity here: http://t.co/3HsOmbPS

  33. mark travers

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  34. Billy Breton

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  35. Christy Tuohy

    @BurtsyWurtsy see here http://t.co/8V0g80v7

  36. Michael Blown

    Does diver Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve to be arrested? I'm not sure he does http://t.co/ql4jrsR8

  37. Mark Sawle

    Lots of bad media reporting on the Tom Daley Twitter troll. Police involvement makes far more sense after reading http://t.co/oJ1Shmga

  38. Charlie Waters

    Oh he wasn't *just* being a dick to Tom Daley – was responding to Daley fans with "I'll stick a knife down yr throat" http://t.co/s4ivc8Kk

  39. GCU Just Testing

    @ArmyCrow @ihaveaboomstick @chrismou @chopmunky @mental_nigella just found more of is tweets – http://t.co/WgFJHYvK

  40. paulstpancras

    Lots of bad media reporting on the Tom Daley Twitter troll. Police involvement makes far more sense after reading http://t.co/oJ1Shmga

  41. Jill Hayward

    Lots of bad media reporting on the Tom Daley Twitter troll. Police involvement makes far more sense after reading http://t.co/oJ1Shmga

  42. Matt Wallace

    Lots of bad media reporting on the Tom Daley Twitter troll. Police involvement makes far more sense after reading http://t.co/oJ1Shmga

  43. Pensioners Campaign

    Lots of bad media reporting on the Tom Daley Twitter troll. Police involvement makes far more sense after reading http://t.co/oJ1Shmga

  44. MerseyMal

    Lots of bad media reporting on the Tom Daley Twitter troll. Police involvement makes far more sense after reading http://t.co/oJ1Shmga

  45. Alastair McGowan

    Now 'malicious communication' makes a lot more sense http://t.co/l2miDWur

  46. Nemesis Republic

    Lots of bad media reporting on the Tom Daley Twitter troll. Police involvement makes far more sense after reading http://t.co/oJ1Shmga

  47. alien from saturn

    another voice of reason http://t.co/bdR8h7Gi

  48. Arun Mehta

    Tom Daley Twitter troll threatened to strangle and stab other #twitter users. http://t.co/9q98iFzW via @libcon

  49. Intervistato.com

    RT @fabiochiusi: Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve arrest? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/MvxOFvdJ

  50. Matteo Castellani T.

    RT @fabiochiusi: Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve arrest? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7Bl32K9t

  51. Jake Hobbs

    Lots of bad media reporting on the Tom Daley Twitter troll. Police involvement makes far more sense after reading http://t.co/oJ1Shmga

  52. Gary Taylor

    Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll
    deserve arrest? Make your own mind up. http://t.co/poRyrJrO

  53. Peter Clutton

    Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve arrest? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ZnE1TBL0 via @libcon

  54. Zarah Sultana

    @LazySlob1 I know. Hopefully this will put off trolls in the future but I don't know.. It's just anti-free speech. http://t.co/mrHeSvwC

  55. Last Tango in Paris

    Does Tom Daley's Twitter troll deserve arrest? http://t.co/slTd7hVY

  56. louise matty?

    Does Tom Daley's Twitter troll deserve arrest? http://t.co/slTd7hVY

  57. English PEN

    Here are some of the tweets by Tom Daley's twitter troll.
    http://t.co/hB4OyQLp

  58. Guy Dammann

    Nice to see the phrase Blimey Oh Rileyy being rehabilitated http://t.co/PgmkjlyA

  59. Matt Wood

    @SBennett800 @CTR200 @runmcleod read this: http://t.co/KVWrszRt and http://t.co/SHkXufn1

  60. Simon

    @foxvertebrae he also made death threats against people: http://t.co/JkpU5lDk (agree fully on the point re abuse against women)

  61. HughSykes

    The @tomDaley1994 tweets in full: I agree, not same as asking 'China cheated?' but we shdn't do that so easily either: http://t.co/QkudWNSQ

  62. » The Only Winning Move Nlogaxical

    [...] (see http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/07/31/does-tom-daleys-twitter-troll-deserve-arrest/ ) [...]

  63. Evelyn Liang

    Does @TomDaley1995 Twitter #troll deserve arrest for his disturbing tweets | Liberal Conspiracy: http://t.co/1acVBF51

  64. British Olympic star Tom Daley exposes Twitter troll | Bazaar Daily News

    [...] Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve arrest? (liberalconspiracy.org) Rate this:Share it!TwitterFacebookPinterestTumblrLinkedInRedditMoreStumbleUponDiggEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. Tags: 2012 London Olympics, British Olympic Association, Celeb, celebrity, Daley, Dorset Police, Entertainment, London, London 2012, Olympic, Olympic Games, Tom Daley, Tom Daley Hot Pictures, Tom Daley Twitter Troll, TWITTER Got a juicy tip? Anonymity guaranteed. Email us: bmediagroup@bazaardaily.com Call us: 323-540-4732 [...]

  65. representingthemambo

    Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve arrest? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/XQlv1Ctf via @libcon

  66. Jean-Marc Letz

    Does Tom Daley’s Twitter troll deserve arrest? | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/gTRoPO9X via @libcon

  67. Kamal Sultan

    @Arsene___Wenger http://t.co/KGruUXG8 the death threats Riley tweeted Daley that is a crime not telling someone to kill themselves #Pleb





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.