maybe JaShea99 you might want to read the whole report . the lady in question was already a victim of rape. The award was for her being named illegally with all that that entails. To now turn it into a joke is, at the very least in poor taste.
maybe JaShea99 you might want to read the whole report . the lady in question was already a victim of rape. The award was for her being named illegally with all that that entails. To now turn it into a joke is, at the very least in poor taste.
Agreed.
The poor girl has had to put up with this as well as being raped. I hope she can now get on with her life.
maybe JaShea99 you might want to read the whole report . the lady in question was already a victim of rape. The award was for her being named illegally with all that that entails. To now turn it into a joke is, at the very least in poor taste.
What? When did I turn it into a joke?! I said its ironic...which it is
maybe JaShea99 you might want to read the whole report . the lady in question was already a victim of rape. The award was for her being named illegally with all that that entails. To now turn it into a joke is, at the very least in poor taste.
What? When did I turn it into a joke?! I said its ironic...which it is
Maybe you should check the definition of irony. For something to be ironic there has to be an element of humour.
maybe JaShea99 you might want to read the whole report . the lady in question was already a victim of rape. The award was for her being named illegally with all that that entails. To now turn it into a joke is, at the very least in poor taste.
What? When did I turn it into a joke?! I said its ironic...which it is
Maybe you should check the definition of irony. For something to be ironic there has to be an element of humour.
True. Maybe there was something postmodern about the irony that obscured the humour though? Perhaps none of us could see it through all the stupidity, childishness and crass insensitivity.
Still, she's been raped and had her name dragged through the gutter - I guess the few thousand quid she's received in compensation more than suggests she deserves to be mocked by someone she's never met on an internet forum.
Rather low fines, but it does show the difficulty in policing the modern electronic world. In the old days, print editors would check everything before publication, including readers' letters to make sure it was legal, whereas in the electronic world people can write what they want, sometimes when angry (or pissed), and it's permanently out there. I wouldn't like to moderate a web site like this one, as it's so easy for people to get carried away.
You do have to wonder about some people. An extract from the report: Littler also turned to Twitter to make accusations against the victim and later told police he was "devastated" that Sheffield United had lost Evans as a result of the trial, as he was the team's best player. Err, no, Sheff Utd didn't lose Evans as a result of the trial. They lost him because of his own actions in a bedroom. I notice that one of the guilty ones is a biology teacher. Would you really want someone so ignorant as that teaching your kids? Hopefully her new criminal record will be sufficient for her school to sack her. What were the defence lawyers playing at using the ignorance mitigation? How stupid is that?
Not defending the individuals... but people tend to treat the internet as an extension to talking to mates down the pub, i.e. saying/typing things of the top of your head. In the old days, such thoughts would be confined to a small group, with the internet everyone can see them, and there's proof that they said them, and evidence to convict.
Not defending the individuals... but people tend to treat the internet as an extension to talking to mates down the pub, i.e. saying/typing things of the top of your head. In the old days, such thoughts would be confined to a small group, with the internet everyone can see them, and there's proof that they said them, and evidence to convict.
Which is what I thought was the main point of interest and note for users of this site only for for JaShea to miss it completely. Oh the irony : - )
What I find doubly disgusting about this and similar cases is that the individuals in this case – and the large number of United fans singing ‘Ched Evans he shags who he wants’ at the Valley and elsewhere before and after the trial – wouldn’t have given a toss what happened to him if he was a shit footballer.
Sadly it seems that large numbers of fans – as shown at Liverpool over Suarez and Chelsea with Terry etc – are prepared to excuse any behaviour as long as the person concerned is reasonably competent at kicking a bladder round a field.
Strange case: this is a bit different to a punitative fine that might be given to a TV network or newspaper that is selling it's content for money. These people might have been stupid or insensitive, but they weren't seeking to gain anything from what they did. They've accepted culpability and they're paying something as a compensation. It would be inappropriate to fine them according to the same rules as multi-million selling newspaper that has access to lawyers and that have journalists with media training. Someone who is bevvied up retweeting something is a different kettle of peaches.
Twitter, alcohol, losing to MK Dons + ignorance appears to be a pretty potent and foul brew. I was struck by something Michael Ignatieff said recently on Radio 4 viz 'A healthy democracy means being made to listen to what you don't want to hear'. I suppose we now have to consider whether this is a view that hasn't survived the Trial by Twitter. We had Freedoms but they came with notions of responsibilities. As we move into an era in which personal responsibility appears too be waning, the response appears to be to remove our Freedoms. Is that the only response we can come up with because IMO it's a dangerous one? I'm not sure where I stand on all this at the moment, thinking cap needed.
Twitter, alcohol, losing to MK Dons + ignorance appears to be a pretty potent and foul brew. I was struck by something Michael Ignatieff said recently on Radio 4 viz 'A healthy democracy means being made to listen to what you don't want to hear'. I suppose we now have to consider whether this is a view that hasn't survived the Trial by Twitter. We had Freedoms but they came with notions of responsibilities. As we move into an era in which personal responsibility appears too be waning, the response appears to be to remove our Freedoms. Is that the only response we can come up with because IMO it's a dangerous one? I'm not sure where I stand on all this at the moment, thinking cap needed.
I don't think that publically naming and smearing a rape victim can be defended on the basis of 'freedom of speech'. Or have I missed your point?
Twitter, alcohol, losing to MK Dons + ignorance appears to be a pretty potent and foul brew. I was struck by something Michael Ignatieff said recently on Radio 4 viz 'A healthy democracy means being made to listen to what you don't want to hear'. I suppose we now have to consider whether this is a view that hasn't survived the Trial by Twitter. We had Freedoms but they came with notions of responsibilities. As we move into an era in which personal responsibility appears too be waning, the response appears to be to remove our Freedoms. Is that the only response we can come up with because IMO it's a dangerous one? I'm not sure where I stand on all this at the moment, thinking cap needed.
I don't think that publically naming and smearing a rape victim can be defended on the basis of 'freedom of speech'. Or have I missed your point?
It's not something I would personally defend, far from it and I don't think I did defend that particular action, rather I had intended to question our response to it. How do we decide what is acceptable and who does the deciding hence the Michael Ignatieff quote? Is the only response to further erode our freedoms?
It is a criminal offence to name a rape victim, simple as that.
That is not an erosion of our freedom but a protection of the freedom of those who have been violated physically not being violated again in the media.
Yes, we do have to listen to things we don't like but that does mean that we allow a free for all.
Comments
The poor girl has had to put up with this as well as being raped. I hope she can now get on with her life.
Still, she's been raped and had her name dragged through the gutter - I guess the few thousand quid she's received in compensation more than suggests she deserves to be mocked by someone she's never met on an internet forum.
Banter.
Like anything in life, Ignorance is not an excuse.
Littler also turned to Twitter to make accusations against the victim and later told police he was "devastated" that Sheffield United had lost Evans as a result of the trial, as he was the team's best player.
Err, no, Sheff Utd didn't lose Evans as a result of the trial. They lost him because of his own actions in a bedroom.
I notice that one of the guilty ones is a biology teacher. Would you really want someone so ignorant as that teaching your kids? Hopefully her new criminal record will be sufficient for her school to sack her.
What were the defence lawyers playing at using the ignorance mitigation? How stupid is that?
Which is what I thought was the main point of interest and note for users of this site only for for JaShea to miss it completely. Oh the irony : - )
Sadly it seems that large numbers of fans – as shown at Liverpool over Suarez and Chelsea with Terry etc – are prepared to excuse any behaviour as long as the person concerned is reasonably competent at kicking a bladder round a field.
That is not an erosion of our freedom but a protection of the freedom of those who have been violated physically not being violated again in the media.
Yes, we do have to listen to things we don't like but that does mean that we allow a free for all.