Teenager arrested for slagging Tom Daley on Twitter

roast

Good to see the f'ckers getting manners put on him but jaysus, what a waste of resources if he really is arrested!

EDIT:Nevermind, just saw the death threats. Prick.

Grayson

In the ruling in last weeks twitter case,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/27/twitter-joke-trial-twits-paul-chambers

The lord chief justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, said: "We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the crown court that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/27/twitter-joke-trial-high-court

"The more one reflects on it," the justices state dryly, "the clearer it becomes that this message did not represent a terrorist threat, or indeed any other form of threat … the language and punctuation are inconsistent with the writer intending it to be a serious warning."

It all boils down to tone. The tweet about blowing up the airport was clearly a joke.
Whereas this guy sounds serious. Now, as someone said, would you be charged if you made these threats in public. Probably not if it was just the once. But you probably would if you kept repeating it to people. Which is what this guy has done.

K.Flyer

He deserves to be arressted and charged, in my opinion what he did was the same as standing outside the guys house and shouting the abuse from the garden gate for all to hear.

Cienciano

The police should watch that show where travellers are working in a shop in Liverpool making dresses. Every traveller would be arrested for making death threats.

StephenHendry

i think the fact that he is being arrested, cautioned etc. should deter most people from doing something similar. obviously it wont stop everyone. neil lennon had similar stuff posted about him on twitter from people thinking they could get away with it. people have freedom of speech but shouldnt abuse it. hopefully the kid will learn a lesson from this.

super_furry

Cienciano wrote: »

The police should watch that show where travellers are working in a shop in Liverpool making dresses. Every traveller would be arrested for making death threats.

You think that squables among friends are comparable with that kind of behaviour?

Yamanoto

Cienciano wrote: »

The police should watch that show where travellers are working in a shop in Liverpool making dresses. Every traveller would be arrested for making death threats.

Youtube is choc-full of Traveller men issuing threats, which in many cases, they undoubtedly intend acting upon. The primary reason this malignant foetus faces possible sanction is due to Olympic fever. Something broadly similar happened to an eejit who tweeted some unsavoury stuff, during the course of the Fabrice Muamba phenomenon.

bb1234567

Melion wrote: »

What the hell are they going to charge him with?

Being mean to an oylmpic athlete I guess:rolleyes:

Cienciano

super_furry wrote: »

You think that squables among friends are comparable with that kind of behaviour?

You obviously haven't watched the show.

Wile E. Coyote

Onixx wrote: »

Death threats are death threats

Death treats are death treats but in the world of twitter they're only deemed valid if made against a celebrity of some kind.

Wile E. Coyote

K.Flyer wrote: »

He deserves to be arressted and charged, in my opinion what he did was the same as standing outside the guys house and shouting the abuse from the garden gate for all to hear.

So should all the people who abused this guy in defence of Daley also be arrested and charged? One girl said she hoped he burned alive.

Death threats, fair enough.. Sports people have been killed before for bad performances. But to the people who said he was right to be arrested when we thought it was just the father comment, cop the fuk on.

smackbunnybaby

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Death treats are death treats but in the world of twitter they're only deemed valid if made against a celebrity of some kind.

or against other people he has said it too over the course of the last few months on twitter as well that aren't celebrities. ...

The Tom Daley incident merely highlighted a fella that dishes out threats and abuse regularly.

homerjay2005

Melion wrote: »

What the hell are they going to charge him with?

its pretty clear, death threats to him and another member of the public. the lad is in big s*it.

Wile E. Coyote

smackbunnybaby wrote: »

or against other people he has said it too over the course of the last few months on twitter as well that aren't celebrities. ...

The Tom Daley incident merely highlighted a fella that dishes out threats and abuse regularly.

The guys a troll. He abuses people on the Internet and that's how he gets his followers. The more followers and attention he gets, the more outrageous his insults.

There's absolutely no real threat in what he was saying and only got arrested because people were getting outraged over it. Even Tom Daley called him for what he is, an idiot, nothing more. It was because everyone else got offended on his behalf that the whole thing got blown out of proportion.

If I was to go into your twitter account and tell you I was going to kill you in some ironic way do you honestly think the guards would be at my door in a matter of hours?

Richard Hillman

Delighted he got arrested. Bullying and abuse like that should not be tolerated.

Wile E. Coyote

Melion wrote: »

What the hell are they going to charge him with?

This site seems to have the answer to that.

http://thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk-diver-tom-daley-subjected-to-abuse-by-twitter-user-rileyy_69/

tinkerbell

That guy deserves a kick up the ass for saying that. Teach the twat to show some damn respect. People think they can just say whatever they like behind a computer screen and that guy is just scum.

Son Of A Vidic

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

If I was to go into your twitter account and tell you I was going to kill you in some ironic way do you honestly think the guards would be at my door in a matter of hours?

Well we do know they certainly wouldn't be there within 25 minutes.

Goro

Melion wrote: »

What the hell are they going to charge him with?

Harassment.

ScumLord

God, I'm glad I was a teenager in the ninety's when all the stupid **** young people say wasn't recorded for all time.

sReq | uTeK

Zulu wrote: »

No harm arresting the little pirck tbh. I'm happy to see some action. Might teach him a little respect.

You should be arrested for abuse, what he said was ****ty but no more ****ty than you saying he's a prick, who determines what's an arrestable form of abuse these days?

Never going to stand up in a court of law, and if it does god help half the internet.

Tym

Yes, it's a pretty horrible thing to say, and the teenager who tweeted it is clearly a nasty piece of work, but for this to be an arrestable offence is a sad reflection on what the UK police forces have become.

No, I was following it a little bit and he did make a death treat. Something about hunting him down or some such.

Zulu

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

You should be arrested for abuse, what he said was ****ty but no more ****ty than you saying he's a prick...

Well, I'd suggest there's a remarkable difference between calling someone a prick, and the myriad of bile he spouted culminating in death threats. But if you can't see that difference there's little point in highlighting it, so...

Yes, I should be arrested for calling him a prick. Good man. Conclusive, well thought out rebuttal can not be dismissed.

Wile E. Coyote

Zulu wrote: »

Well, I'd suggest there's a remarkable difference between calling someone a prick, and the myriad of bile he spouted culminating in death threats. But if you can't see that difference there's little point in highlighting it, so...

Yes, I should be arrested for calling him a prick. Good man. Conclusive, well thought out rebuttal can not be dismissed.

So how much abuse should there be before it's considered an arrestable offence? Most people I spoke to didn't even know anything about the 'death treath' and were glad he got arrested purely because of what he said about his dad.

Zulu

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

So how much abuse should there be before it's considered an arrestable offence?

When the abuseometer hits 6.75 obviously.

Alternativly, once someone makes a malicious threat.

--Kaiser--

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

So how much abuse should there be before it's considered an arrestable offence? Most people I spoke to didn't even know anything about the 'death treath' and were glad he got arrested purely because of what he said about his dad.

When he threatened to kill him which, in legal terms, is assault

YellowPencil

It's not slagging. It's bullying. If he'd posted something like that on a childs facebook page, there would be uproar and it would by acknowledged as cyber-bullying. However because Tom Daly is an adult and famous, he's expected to just take it?

ScumLord

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

When he threatened to kill him which, in legal terms, is assault

YellowPencil wrote: »

It's not slagging. It's bullying. If he'd posted something like that on a childs facebook page, there would be uproar and it would by acknowledged as cyber-bullying. However because Tom Daly is an adult and famous, he's expected to just take it?

While I agree up to a point, some spotty teenager wouldn't have said that to an Olympic athlete in real life because he'd be afraid too. This is internet hard man behaviour that's been around since the beginning of the internet, it's only become an issue now that the general population are on the internet and simply don't understand that the internet is full of all sorts of nonsense and all you have to do is ignore the nonsense.

Wile E. Coyote

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

When he threatened to kill him which, in legal terms, is assault

Really or are you just making stuff up because it sounds like it could be right? Does there not have to be malice and intent for it to be considered a viable threat?

ResearchWill

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

When he threatened to kill him which, in legal terms, is assault

From the Irish section dealing with assault,

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

The UK from what I know also require the threat to be immediate.

ceannair06

To all you "free speech" lovers out there.

How do you know that this idiot was just "giving a bit of the mouth" and is not a danger ?

Two words. John Lennon.

I'm sure that psycho Chapman would probably have tweeted from outside the Dakota and you lot would have let him away.

Richard Hillman

Copied from Wiki

In the United Kingdom, contributions made to the Internet are covered by the Communications Act 2003. Sending messages which are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" is an offense whether they are received by the intended recipient or not

I would consider the thing about his father as "Grossly Offensive" and the comment about drowning Tom Daley of "menacing character".

YellowPencil

ScumLord wrote: »

While I agree up to a point, some spotty teenager wouldn't have said that to an Olympic athlete in real life because he'd be afraid too. This is internet hard man behaviour that's been around since the beginning of the internet, it's only become an issue now that the general population are on the internet and simply don't understand that the internet is full of all sorts of nonsense and all you have to do is ignore the nonsense.

Usually when anything develops at first it is not properly regulated because regulation is reactive. I agree that there is all sorts of nonsense on the internet, but should you have to ignore it? I think it may be time to start regulating the internet more. Now that everybody is on it, if someone posts something nasty about you on twitter or facebook or anywhere else, it is possible half your friends will see it. Harassment isn't allowed in real life. It's not allowed on the internet either, it's just been traditionally harder to catch. I don't think that's a reason to accept it and give up the fight against it.

ScumLord

YellowPencil wrote: »

Usually when anything develops at first it is not properly regulated because regulation is reactive. I agree that there is all sorts of nonsense on the internet, but should you have to ignore it?

Yes, just like if you see something you don't like on TV you can just change the channel.

Now that everybody is on it, if someone posts something nasty about you on twitter or facebook or anywhere else, it is possible half your friends will see it.

If they're your friends they'll turn on the attacker just as quick. Websites can regulate themselves. This guy should be booted from twitter by twitter and he'll learn his lesson.When I commented about the internet having more people on it I meant it now has the holy Joes on it now out looking for something to get upset about.

Harassment isn't allowed in real life. It's not allowed on the internet either, it's just been traditionally harder to catch. I don't think that's a reason to accept it and give up the fight against it.

Harassment happens on a daily basis in real life. If some bum called you a name in real life you'd simply ignore him and roll your eyes.

MistyCheese

"Right to Free Speech" does not equal "Right to hurl abuse at people, intentionally inflict as much hurt as you possibly can by making ridiculous comments and threaten to hunt someone down and end their life."

People really can't see that?

YellowPencil

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes, just like if you see something you don't like on TV you can just change the channel.

If they're your friends they'll turn on the attacker just as quick. Websites can regulate themselves. This guy should be booted from twitter by twitter and he'll learn his lesson.When I commented about the internet having more people on it I meant it now has the holy Joes on it now out looking for something to get upset about.

Harassment happens on a daily basis in real life. If some bum called you a name in real life you'd simply ignore him and roll your eyes.

Something that I find offensive on TV is highly unlikely to be a personal attack on me and if it is I'll consult a lawyer and get advice.

The same laws apply to the internet. He doesn't have to be harassed. The guy shouldn't have to rely on the discretion of the website to have the other guy dealt with. It should be a right. People reading about you who vaguely know you may not necessarily be good friends. It may influence their perceptions of you depending on what is written.

You see it as Holy Joes arriving on the web of late looking for things to get offended about. I see it as people who were on the web from the beginning and were used to getting away with writing whatever they liked because they were hard to catch and they didn't have enough of an audience in the beginning for people to care, now getting upset that there internet world is being held to the same standards as the real world, which it always should have been.

As to whether I'd ignore being called a name or not in real life, I don't know. If I was being bullied in an educational establishment or workplace, I'd consider a formal complaint, for which I would expect there to be a procedure. If I was being bullied through other media e.g. newspapers, TV, I'd complaint to the regulator and then take matters further if necessary. There would be a big difference between someone calling me a name on a bus and someone calling me a name with an audience of millions.

Richard Hillman

Claire Balding just said she received abuse a while ago from this character so it wasnt just a moment of madness from him. He's just a nasty character that needed stopping.

Cienciano

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Copied from Wiki



I would consider the thing about his father as "Grossly Offensive" and the comment about drowning Tom Daley of "menacing character".

Maybe that's what happened to facekicker, he's serving time in jail

ScumLord

YellowPencil wrote: »

Something that I find offensive on TV is highly unlikely to be a personal attack on me and if it is I'll consult a lawyer and get advice.

It could be an attack on your believes or nationality though comedy. Would you really consult a solicitor because someone made a crude paddy joke?

The same laws apply to the internet.

They don't, the internet is global and very hard to police. Who's laws should be applied?

The guy shouldn't have to rely on the discretion of the website to have the other guy dealt with. It should be a right.

Why shouldn't he rely on the site? The site has rules for it's use and he more than likely broke them. I don't see how it can be a right to only have nice things said to you.

As to whether I'd ignore being called a name or not in real life, I don't know. If I was being bullied in an educational establishment or workplace, I'd consider a formal complaint,

And you should because we're not talking about the same thing at all. If some random person threw an insult at you and you never saw that person again or they're obviously some kid playing the hard man you'd ignore it. Bullying in the workplace is an entirely different matter. I honestly don't understand why people get upset over hal;f the stuff they get upset about. If they simply ignore it and move on the incident disappears and you'd be hard pushed to even remember it in 5 years time.

uch

Serve's the little pr1ck right

YellowPencil

ScumLord wrote: »

It could be an attack on your believes or nationality though comedy. Would you really consult a solicitor because someone made a crude paddy joke?

They don't, the internet is global and very hard to police. Who's laws should be applied?


Why shouldn't he rely on the site? The site has rules for it's use and he more than likely broke them. I don't see how it can be a right to only have nice things said to you.



And you should because we're not talking about the same thing at all. If some random person threw an insult at you and you never saw that person again or they're obviously some kid playing the hard man you'd ignore it. Bullying in the workplace is an entirely different matter. I honestly don't understand why people get upset over hal;f the stuff they get upset about. If they simply ignore it and move on the incident disappears and you'd be hard pushed to even remember it in 5 years time.

Somebody attacking my beliefs through comedy on TV wouldn't be personal bullying. That's not what happened here. It was a personal attack.

We shouldn't rely on the site because they're not under an obligation to enforce their rules. If you read through boards.ie terms and conditions, you'll probably find disclaimers.

Rules do apply on the interenet. Why do you see courts stepping in demading that facebook/twitter/google had over info? We've seen injunctions that they have had to comply with. It's more complicated, but you do not avoid legal obligations because you've gone online. Jursidictional issues can be worked out.

I'd be hard pushed to remeber an incident by one kid. If bullying of me became national news and was highlighted to millions as it was here, I'd certainly remember it.

token101

The tweet to Sky News just sums him up:

@SkyNews you ****ing report me on the news again i'll have you done for harrassment and a lawsuit you get me final chance you *****

What a f*cking moron.

RoverZT

No sympathy for Tom or any sports star that uses Twitter.

What do they expect from it?

They should keep there head down and get on with there work.

ceannair06

RoverZT wrote: »

No sympathy for Tom or any sports star that uses Twitter.

What do they expect from it?

They should keep there head down and get on with there work.

Yeah, and not waste time learning to differentiate between "their" and "there".

super_furry

RoverZT wrote: »

No sympathy for Tom or any sports star that uses Twitter.

What do they expect from it?

They should keep there head down and get on with there work.

Yeah, just like those girls that go around in short skirts right, just asking for it they are.....

jordainius

RoverZT wrote: »

No sympathy for Tom or any sports star that uses Twitter.

What do they expect from it?

They should keep there head down and get on with there work.

Explain to me what he did wrong please? Do you feel he deserved the abuse that idiot gave him? Do you feel that it is impossible for a person to both have a twitter account and be able to keep their head down and get on with their work? You'd swear he was on twitter 24/7 based on what you say...

RoverZT

ceannair06 wrote: »

Yeah, and not waste time learning to differentiate between "their" and "there".

no need a , after your Yeah.

Not good grammar

ceannair06

RoverZT wrote: »

no need a , after your Yeah.

Not good grammar

There is the need for a ",".

You're separating a thought as in "yeah" - I get that and then continue with your thought.

RoverZT

jordainius wrote: »

Explain to me what he did wrong please? Do you feel he deserved the abuse that idiot gave him? Do you feel that it is impossible for a person to both have a twitter account and be able to keep their head down and get on with their work? You'd swear he was on twitter 24/7 based on what you say...

If they are on twitter they are going to get abuse, praise and everything in between.

That's life.

Tom is in the middle of the Olympics and being distracted by this probably.