Internet 'trolls'....the government's plans outlined.

[Bailiff Advice]

Over the weekend all newspapers carried reports that the Ministry of Justice would be seeking to change the law about 'internet trolls' and increasing the prison sentence from 6 months to 2 years.

 

Below I have provided links to three documents from the Ministry of Justice. One is a news item that was released today together with a Fact Sheet and the second link is to the updated Impact Assessment (from July 2014) that was also released today.

 

One change is to amend Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 so as to extend the time for prosecutions of offences. But the main change is to :

 

Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

 

This section covers the sending.....delivering....or transmitting of any letters, or electronic communications (on forums, blogs or any social media etc) or any other article which could include, for example,photographs and recordings that are indecent, grossly offensive or which convey a threat or:

 

information which the sender knows or believes to be false.

 

It also covers the sending of such articles which are, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature.

 

Crucially, in each case there must be an intention on the part of the sender (or person writing the article to “cause distress or anxiety” to the person who receives the communication.

 

At present, an offence under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 of sending certain articles with intent to cause "distress or anxiety" is a summary-only offence with a maximum penalty of just six months imprisonment, a fine of £5,000, or both.

 

Most importantly, at present, prosecutions must commence within a very strict time period of just six months from the date of the offence being committed.

 

This short period of time is to increase and the Ministry of Justice stated yesterday that this will allow for police investigating internet offences such as 'trolling' to obtain "evidence from internet service providers based abroad"*

 

The changes to section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act have been brought by amending the Criminal Justice Bill to make the offence in section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 an 'either way offence' and increasing the maximum penalty to 2 years imrisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.

 

In 2012, there were approx 750 proceedings under Section 1 of the 1988 Malicious Communications Act and of those proceeded against nearly 10% were given immediate custodial sentences.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/internet-trolls-to-face-2-years-in-prison

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321285/malicious-communicationss-impact-assessment.pdf

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322204/fact-sheet-malicious-communications.pdf

[Bailiff Advice]

What are 'Internet Trolls?

 

In the past couple of months in particular there have been many occasions when ‘new posters’ join the site when a particular ‘thread’ (or subject is posted)...this is very evident when queries are raised on the following subjects:

 

Paying the local authority/magistrate court direct in order to avoid bailiff fees.

 

The charging of bailiff fees when enforcing a Magistrate Court Fine

 

Displaying a ‘NOROIRA’ (Removal of Implied Right of Access)

 

Very quickly the new ‘user’ will post inflammatory comments and this almost always lead to the thread being disrupted very quickly becoming ‘locked’* and posters being ‘banned’.

 

How to identify an ‘internet troll’

 

http://www.peorian.com/technology/technology-news/trolls-cyberbullies/1079-how-to-identify-and-defeat-an-internet-troll

 

Most importantly, internet "trolls" rolls are cowards and bullies and many like to work 'in a pack'. This is seen or forums when more than one poster joins a forum in order to disrupt a thread.

 

They tend to single out an individual and will go to extreme lengths to hide their own identity whilst ensuring that the identity of their 'victim' or victim's is made public at each and every opportunity.

[Bailiff Advice]

The above link is excellent and in particular gets straight to the point (as follows):

 

Administrators tend to block and remove anyone who engages in trollish behavior.

 

The troll doesn't care. Trolls don't follow the rules or terms of service. They jump from one platform and one conversation thread to another, causing as much damage as possible. If they get kicked off a site, they'll try to return, using a different username or a different computer.

Trolls are easy to recognize by their mode of operation. They will never compliment you for a smart statement, or admit that your question is difficult to respond to, or tone down the rhetoric with a smiley emoticon.

 

Trolls accuse and insult. Trolls needle you relentlessly. They love to flame others. They enjoy causing grief, making another person feel bad. Trolls will quickly move from serious discussion about an issue to a sustained personal assault.

 

The goal of a troll is to disrupt an online discussion, picking on one person, or on everyone who expresses a particular point of view.

[Coughdrop]

Two other things worth mentioning which have not been mentioned are that the offence for Malicious Communications is the posting of the communication. The communication does NOT have to be read or even seen by the intended recipient.

 

Secondly, it is often easier to prove harassment than Malicious Communications, so that should be kept in mind as well. For all the aforementioned it is vitally important to have a strong evidence trail and to involve the police at the earliest opportunity after making the website admin aware of it and them not doing anything. Harassment is also far easier to prove than defamation.

 

It is extremely welcome news.

[Bailiff Advice]

For all the aforementioned it is vitally important to have a strong evidence trail and to involve the police at the earliest opportunity after making the website admin aware of it and them not doing anything.

 

It is extremely welcome news.

 

In fact the 'welcome news' that I have received is an email from a firm of solicitors outlining further steps that should be taken and outlining new legislation which is aimed at the owners of websites publishing 'offending' articles.

 

Firstly, the solicitor advised me that if posts are made on blogs, forums or websites that cause extreme 'anxiety and distress' to an individual the first step must be to contact the website in question and ask for the offending material to be removed. In that way, the poster/website will be left in no doubt at all that posts have caused 'anxiety and distress'. If the offending items are not removed then police action can follow and it would be considered very serious indeed if the poster/website (after being put on notice) continued to re-post the offending material.

 

Crucially, the individual making the complaint may now rely upon the new Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 (link below)

 

Under this brand new act, a complaint must be made to the website owner and they in turn must contact the 'posters' to advise them of the complaint and to seek their contact name and details. If the 'poster' fails to respond or refuses to provide his contact information, the website owner is obliged to remove the offending material. There are very strict limits imposed.

 

If the website owner refuses to pass on the complaint to the 'poster' or to do anything then that person (or company) becomes liable and most importantly....they lose the protection under the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013

 

The following link is to an excellent article about this new regulation:

 

http://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/legal-articles/2014/03/03/defamation-operators-websites-regulations-2013/

[LynxRoll]

What has any of this got to do with bailiffs? Wrong section if you ask me. Wrong forum even.

[brassnecked]

What has any of this got to do with bailiffs? Wrong section if you ask me. Wrong forum even.

 

Sorry but this new Regulation could affect every forum and even Facebork and Twitter, as to troll could siteadmins evict this troll advert please appearing on the site it is highly offensive to me, as I have Romanies in my family.

 

http://www.civilenforcementagency.co.uk//travellers.htm

[unclebulgaria67]

Bring in a new law, have a few example cases where people end up with convictions and hope that it stops online abuse. It may work.

 

Online should be no different to any other form of life. If people are making death threats, they should be aware that this is illegal and Police can take action.

 

I want to make it illegal for companies to make cold calls to people who are registered with TPS, with punishment of my choice to be inflicted on them. I would like their mouths to be super glued together for say 6 months.

[LynxRoll]

Sorry but this new Regulation could affect every forum and even Facebork and Twitter, as to troll could siteadmins evict this troll advert please appearing on the site it is highly offensive to me, as I have Romanies in my family.

 

But why is it been put in the 'bailiffs' section? What has it got to with bailiffs?

[LynxRoll]

Bring in a new law, have a few example cases where people end up with convictions and hope that it stops online abuse. It may work.

 

The problems will occur when some people try to abuse the law, complaining about jokes or wind-ups rather than the intention of serious online abuse. There will be many who will want the police to investigate when someone has 'hurt their feelings', a conversation I have seen on another forum.

[Coughdrop]

I agree Uncle Bulgaria - in an ideal world online life should be no different in terms of accountability to one's normal life. I think the combination of laws outlined above have potential.

[Bailiff Advice]

But why is it been put in the 'bailiffs' section? What has it got to with bailiffs?

 

This 'subject' is of utmost importance and if I had been a regular poster on the bailiff forum I would have posted a thread on there. The fact of the matter is that I post on this part of the forum and that is where I have posted the thread and frankly, from the simply unbelievable number of messages and emails that I have received today the decision to post the thread here seems the right one.

 

If they wish....the moderators may move the thread elsewhere. I will have no objections whatsoever.

[LynxRoll]

I just don't get why 'trolling' is a bailiff problem, unless there are bailiffs on here doing the trolling. The thread needs to be moved to some sort of 'current affairs' or general section, IMO.

[Coughdrop]

Anyone like Cockney Rhyming Slang?

[brassnecked]

Anyone like Cockney Rhyming Slang?

Is LynxRoll 'avin a larf?

[LynxRoll]

Is LynxRoll 'avin a larf?

 

Excuse me?

[DragonFly1967]

Excuse me?

 

I think, what people are trying to say is, does it really matter where it's posted? No one is forcing you to read the thread.

[sillygirl1]

The trouble with one lot of recent trolls is the amount of mis information they can spread - including the comments 'I read it somewhere on the internet that....' without being able to link to the alleged evidence, or 'My friend says on the internet you can.....'

 

I get some low level 'girlie' spam every now and again from Quickdate and the like, but whilst some f the photos are definately pornographic I am not going to let them 'destroy my day'. I am also on a closed Facebook group where some of our normal posts are heavily monitored for 'offensive' content even though there is no 'offensive comments' intended.

 

It is that blanket statement in the legislation I object to - to me posts asking me to 'support our troups' are offensive as I am basically a pacifist, as is 'support this cause otherwise you are failing your community' are also offensive as they are very one sided views.

[*RainbowTears*]

Is LynxRoll 'avin a larf?

 

Larf indeed BN!!

 

Av a butchers, as username (for example) LynxRoll = Troll as this is what Cockney Rhyming slang is all about.

 

I am a Cockney, Bethnal Green & loud.

 

 

@ TT, Thanks indeed for this. I don't get why trolls have to disrupt threads that are originally intended to help the public!

 

Sadly their antics caused certain threads to be locked on here. Which aint helping anyone!

 

We should all have the same goal, help & assist those in need & to get the correct information out there.

 

Trolls should stick to sitting under bridges in fairy tales!

[LynxRoll]

Larf indeed BN!!

 

Av a butchers, as username (for example) LynxRoll = Troll as this is what Cockney Rhyming slang is all about.

 

Oh I see what you mean. Duh. Lol. I came up with that name when the sign-up page asked for a username and on the table next to me was a can of Lynx deodorant and a toilet roll!

 

Oh well.

[Bailiff Advice]

Oh I see what you mean. Duh. Lol. I came up with that name when the sign-up page asked for a username and on the table next to me was a can of Lynx deodorant and a toilet roll!

Oh well.

 

Well at least your user name makes a big difference to the 'usual' 'troll' ones that regularly feature on the bailiff forum. Those ones very oddly tend to have a 'link' somewhere to a Star Wars figure.

 

One other factor with 'trolls' is the way in which they will keep 'pounding away at the same question' which is what you were doing yesterday when you repeatedly returned to the same question about why had the thread been posted in the bailiff section of the forum. Thankfully, that question has now been answered and the thread can get back to the serious subject.

 

Welcome to the forum.

[Bailiff Advice]

The problems will occur when some people try to abuse the law, complaining about jokes or wind-ups rather than the intention of serious online abuse. There will be many who will want the police to investigate when someone has 'hurt their feelings', a conversation I have seen on another forum.

 

A good point and one that is answered quite easily by way of the following Ministerial Fact Sheet introduced to outline the new Defamation (Owners of Websites) Regulations 2013.

 

In considering whether 'offending' posts are considered defamory under the Defamation (Owners of Websites) Regulations 2013 the Ministry of Justice cannot have made the position clearer than under the following heading on Page 2 (Item 9)

 

What the statement complained of says and why it is Defamatory of the Complainant

 

It states as follows:

 

 

This should provide an explanation of the reasons why the complainant thinks the statement is defamatory of the complaint. The Courts have used a range of tests in deciding what is defamatory (for example; whether the material (posted):

 

'tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally' and broadly speaking the complainant should focus on explaining the harm that the statement has caused or is likely to cause to his or her reputation'

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...n-guidance.pdf

[Fair-Parking]

Lynx Roll - post 10

 

'Ma feelings already bin hurt by being wid you' - Bo Diddley to Jerome 'Say Man' 1959

[Bailiff Advice]

The problems will occur when some people try to abuse the law, complaining about jokes or wind-ups

 

There will be many who will want the police to investigate when someone has 'hurt their feelings',

 

As you will see from the above post (number 22) a person would find difficulty in making a complaint about a 'joke, a 'wind up' or 'hurt feelings'.

 

The overall deciding factor is what would 'right thinking' people think when reading offending posts (or articles) and whether it would:

 

"lower their estimation of that person"

 

Secondly,whether the 'offending' posts or articles have:

 

"harmed that persons reputation or are likely to do so".

 

PS: I have not as yet had time to read the Ministerial Fact Sheet myself as this new regulation was only brought to my attention yesterday.

[brassnecked]

Anyway a list of Cockaney phrases for your education and possible delight:

 

1. Adam and Eve – believe
   
2. Alan Whickers – knickers
   
3. apples and pears – stairs
   
4. Artful Dodger – lodger
   
5. Ascot Races – braces
   
6. Aunt Joanna – piano
   
7. Baked Bean – Queen
   
8. Baker’s Dozen – Cousin
   
9. Ball and Chalk – Walk
   
10. Barnaby Rudge – Judge
    
11. Barnet Fair – hair
    
12. Barney Rubble – trouble
    
13. Battlecruiser – boozer
    
14. bees and honey – money
    
15. bird lime – time (in prison)
    
16. Boat Race – face
    
17. Bob Hope – soap
    
18. bottle and glass – arse
    
19. Brahms and Liszt – ****ed (drunk)
    
20. Brass Tacks – facts
    
21. Bread and Cheese – sneeze
    
22. Bread and Honey – money
    
23. Bricks and Mortar – daughter
    
24. Bristol City – breasts
    
25. Brown Bread – dead
    
26. Bubble and Squeak – Greek
    
27. Bubble Bath – Laugh
    
28. butcher’s hook – a look
    
29. Chalfont St. Giles – piles
    
30. Chalk Farm – arm
    
31. china plate – mate (friend)
    
32. Cock and Hen – ten
    
33. Cows and Kisses – Missus (wife)
    
34. currant bun – sun (also The Sun, a British newspaper)
    
35. custard and jelly – telly (television)
    
36. Daisy Roots – boots
    
37. Darby and Joan – moan
    
38. Dicky bird – word
    
39. Dicky Dirt – shirt
    
40. Dinky Doos – shoes
    
41. dog and bone – phone
    
42. dog’s meat – feet [from early 20th c.]
    
43. Duck and Dive – skive
    
44. Duke of Kent – rent
    
45. dustbin lid – kid
    
46. Elephant’s Trunk – drunk
    
47. Fireman’s Hose – nose
    
48. Flowery Dell – cell
    
49. Frog and Toad – road
    
50. Gypsy’s kiss – ****
    
51. half-inch – pinch (to steal)
    
52. Hampton Wick – prick
    
53. Hank Marvin – starving
    
54. irish pig – wig
    
55. Isle of Wight – tights
    
56. jam-jar – car
    
57. Jayme Gibbs
    
58. Jimmy Riddle – piddle
    
59. joanna – piano (pronounced ‘pianna’ in Cockney)
    
60. Khyber Pass – arse
    
61. Kick and Prance – dance
    
62. Lady Godiva – fiver
    
63. Laugh n a joke – smoke
    
64. Lionel Blairs – flares
    
65. Loaf of Bread – head
    
66. loop the loop – soup
    
67. Mickey Bliss – ****
    
68. Mince Pies – eyes
    
69. Mork and Mindy – windy’
    
70. north and south – mouth
    
71. Orchestra stalls – balls
    
72. Pat and Mick – sick
    
73. Peckham Rye – tie
    
74. plates of meat – feet
    
75. Pony and Trap – crap
    
76. raspberry ripple – nipple
    
77. raspberry tart – fart
    
78. Roast Pork – fork
    
79. Rosy Lee – tea (drink)
    
80. Round the Houses – trousers
    
81. Rub-a-Dub – pub
    
82. Ruby Murray – curry
    
83. Sausage Roll – goal
    
84. septic tank – Yank
    
85. sherbert (short for sherbert dab) – cab (taxi)
    
86. Skin and Blister – sister
    
87. Sky Rocket – pocket
    
88. Sweeney Todd – flying squad
    
89. syrup of figs – wig (sic)
    
90. tables and chairs – stairs
    
91. tea leaf – thief
    
92. Todd Sloane – alone
    
93. Tom and Dick – sick
    
94. tom tit – ****
    
95. tomfoolery – jewellery
    
96. Tommy Trinder – window
    
97. trouble and strife – wife
    
98. two and eight – state (of upset)
    
99. Vera Lynn – gin
    
100. whistle and flute – suit (of clothes)
     

http://londontopia.net/londonism/fun-london/language-top-100-cockney-rhyming-slang-words-and-phrases/from