Internet troll says crimes not serious

minikin

seamus wrote: »

His overall appearance - torn, unwashed clothes, bad skin and morbid obesity illustrates someone who is unaware of basic personal care or who is so mired in mental illness that they just don't care about their appearance.

His obesity isn't the be-all and end-all of his mental state, but it certainly paints a picture of someone who has trouble taking care of themself.

The shaved head doesn't help calm the "I am an internet Nazi" persona, but that can be just coincidental.

Surely all these indicators of mental ill health are reason not to go to town on the chap?

Rory28

minikin wrote: »

Continue doing it so, if you enjoy it.
Let's lower ourselves to the same level as the offender.
Sure, what harm can come from a bit of online bullying?

You have a backwards look on this. You continue to defend a guy who was doing more than a bit of online bullying. I'm beginning to think that you are also a troll.

minikin

Rory28 wrote: »

You have a backwards look on this. You continue to defend a guy who was doing more than a bit of online bullying. I'm beginning to think that you are also a troll.

ding ding ding ding... there we have it... start attacking me now, call me a troll because you've run out of arguments - what's next, report some posts? try to get a mod to warn or ban me from the thread because, horrors of horrors, you don't agree with my point of view??

If your only contribution to a debate is to personally attack the other participants, by name calling, then maybe you need a stronger contribution?

All I'm doing is shining a light on the hypocrisy on here and you don't like it, come back with a counterpoint, but enough of the personal abuse.

If reasoned and reasonable discussion gets drowned out by the mob all you will end up with is an echo chamber filled with the lowest common denominator.

seamus

minikin wrote: »

Surely all these indicators of mental ill health are reason not to go to town on the chap?

That's a big if.

If he's reading. If he cares. If he's even remotely aware.

You could suppose that he's either unaware or just doesn't care about his appearance, so comments on a forum will be of little consequence.

In principle, sure, general abusive and malicious comments shouldn't be tolerated, but I don't see an issue with fair and/or honest comments. There's a difference between an offensive statement and an abusive one.

That's exactly what he doesn't understand.

weldoninhio

minikin wrote: »

ding ding ding ding... there we have it... start attacking me now, call me a troll because you've run out of arguments - what's next, report some posts? try to get a mod to warn or ban me from the thread because, horrors of horrors, you don't agree with my point of view??

If your only contribution to a debate is to personally attack the other participants, by name calling, then maybe you need a stronger contribution?

All I'm doing is shining a light on the hypocrisy on here and you don't like it, come back with a counterpoint, but enough of the personal abuse.

If reasoned and reasonable discussion gets drowned out by the mob all you will end up with is an echo chamber filled with the lowest common denominator.

Hypocrisy?? I haven't seen any posts on here directed at him telling him he is going to be "filled with lead" or threatening him. He wasn't "trolling" he was threatening violence towards someone. Not one person in here has done the same, and if they did i'd be the first to report them.

Also, no one has "attacked" you.

minikin

seamus wrote: »

That's a big if.

If he's reading. If he cares. If he's even remotely aware.

You could suppose that he's either unaware or just doesn't care about his appearance, so comments on a forum will be of little consequence.

In principle, sure, general abusive and malicious comments shouldn't be tolerated, but I don't see an issue with fair and/or honest comments. There's a difference between an offensive statement and an abusive one.

That's exactly what he doesn't understand.

Should we not aim for a better level of behaviour than the school ground Seamus? It's ok to target someone for bullying IF they don't know about it? or IF they say they don't care about it?

There's a difference between an offensive statement and an abusive one.

Read back over some of the contributions, tell me they're not abusive of this named individual.

That's exactly what he doesn't understand.

This is the point, the rest of us 'non-mentally ill' people should understand this and behave in a way that demonstrates this understanding.

weldoninhio

minikin wrote: »

Should we not aim for a better level of behaviour than the school ground Seamus? It's ok to target someone for bullying IF they don't know about it? or IF they say they don't care about it?


Read back over some of the contributions, tell me they're not abusive of this named individual.


This is the point, the rest of us 'non-mentally ill' people should understand this and behave in a way that demonstrates this understanding.

How do you know that the rest of us aren't mentally ill?? "One in four people will experience a mental health problem at some point in their lives." - according to Mental Health Ireland.

minikin

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hypocrisy?? I haven't seen any posts on here directed at him telling him he is going to be "filled with lead" or threatening him. He wasn't "trolling" he was threatening violence towards someone. Not one person in here has done the same, and if they did i'd be the first to report them.

Also, no one has "attacked" you.

1. You don't think it's hypocritical to bully someone online because they bullied someone online?

2. Not once on this thread have I referred to his awful activities as "trolling".

3. You "attacked" me, by inferring that I was in some way related to the guy. Because you could find no other way of trying to undermine my point of view. Attack the post, not the poster.

Now, any chance we can get back to the topic?

In my experience, internet trolls are;

Ugly in appearance and personality

Angry at the world

Unemployed

Feel the world has somehow done them wrong, without realizing that it's just them and not the world

Are mentally ill

Rory28

minikin wrote: »

ding ding ding ding... there we have it... start attacking me now, call me a troll because you've run out of arguments - what's next, report some posts? try to get a mod to warn or ban me from the thread because, horrors of horrors, you don't agree with my point of view??

If your only contribution to a debate is to personally attack the other participants, by name calling, then maybe you need a stronger contribution?

All I'm doing is shining a light on the hypocrisy on here and you don't like it, come back with a counterpoint, but enough of the personal abuse.

If reasoned and reasonable discussion gets drowned out by the mob all you will end up with is an echo chamber filled with the lowest common denominator.

There are no arguments to make. He made vile death threats and is deserving of public anger. I have yet to see a single death threat in this thread and have certainly not attacked you.

The only discussion we should be having is the inadequacy of our justice system.

Grayson

minikin wrote: »

ding ding ding ding... there we have it... start attacking me now, call me a troll because you've run out of arguments - what's next, report some posts? try to get a mod to warn or ban me from the thread because, horrors of horrors, you don't agree with my point of view??

If your only contribution to a debate is to personally attack the other participants, by name calling, then maybe you need a stronger contribution?

All I'm doing is shining a light on the hypocrisy on here and you don't like it, come back with a counterpoint, but enough of the personal abuse.

If reasoned and reasonable discussion gets drowned out by the mob all you will end up with is an echo chamber filled with the lowest common denominator.

Don't think of it as name calling. Think of it as a description of your behaviour.

minikin

Grayson wrote: »

Don't think of it as name calling. Think of it as a description of your behaviour.

"a description of your behaviour"
What behaviour is that?

Being reasonable and saying the courts have done their job, no need for a further trial by social media, let's not destroy this young man entirely.
Is that being labelled as "behaviour" now?

There's a nasty habit of reasonable people being driven out of public debates because they stand up to a mob mentality, recognise that happening here at all?

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

In my experience, internet trolls are;

Ugly in appearance and personality

Angry at the world

Unemployed

Feel the world has somehow done them wrong, without realizing that it's just them and not the world

Are mentally ill

talking to people with complex issues such as mental health problems etc, reveals a failure in our social systems to adequately deal with their issues and in many cases our social systems actually exasperates them

minikin

Rory28 wrote: »

The only discussion we should be having is the inadequacy of our justice system.

Agree 100% with this Rory. So lets have that discussion, rather than entertain attacks on him because of his appearance or mental ill-health.

weldoninhio

minikin wrote: »

1. You don't think it's hypocritical to bully someone online because they bullied someone online?

2. Not once on this thread have I referred to his awful activities as "trolling".

3. You "attacked" me, by inferring that I was in some way related to the guy. Because you could find no other way of trying to undermine my point of view. Attack the post, not the poster.

Now, any chance we can get back to the topic?

1. Telling someone you are going to murder them and describing it in detail is not bullying, it is threatening and intimidating.

2. Check out the title of the thread you are replying in.

3. If someone breaks the rules report them.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

talking to people with complex issues such as mental health problems etc, reveals a failure in our social systems to adequately deal with their issues and in many cases our social systems actually exasperates them

Is it really society's job to bend to the mentally ill and angry though?

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it really society's job to bend to the mentally ill and angry though?

a failure of society to address complex issues such as mental health issues tends to lead to further complexity such as criminality etc, thus creating reactive systems to deal with these issues, id rather try deal with these issues as early as possible in a more proactive manner.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

a failure of society to address complex issues such as mental health issues tends to lead to further complexity such as criminality etc, thus creating reactive systems to deal with these issues, id rather try deal with these issues as early as possible in a more proactive manner.

Well, I'll be more in favour of very hefty fines and prison sentences. Having been the target of internet trolls, I've zero sympathy for them.

L.Jenkins

Wanderer78 wrote: »

a failure of society to address complex issues such as mental health issues tends to lead to further complexity such as criminality etc, thus creating reactive systems to deal with these issues, id rather try deal with these issues as early as possible in a more proactive manner.

I agree. We need a more proactive approach to Mental Health in Ireland. Yes, the HSE is currently under pressure, but over all in needs better management from the top down, allowing for the provision of Primary Care Mental Health Services and a patients ease of access to those services.

My issue also is, education. I see Mental Health as a lesser discussed issue and if we can start discussing it at a younger age, people can begin treating and managing it better, instead of joining in the silence and stigma surrounding the stigma.

seamus

minikin wrote: »

Should we not aim for a better level of behaviour than the school ground Seamus? It's ok to target someone for bullying IF they don't know about it? or IF they say they don't care about it?

That's not the question I was responding to. Your query was whether the comments were helpful for his mental health.

The question of "what you don't know can't hurt you" is a different one altogether.

Read back over some of the contributions, tell me they're not abusive of this named individual.

I'm not speaking for, not defending anyone else's comments. Personal abuse of individuals, whether or not they are on boards, is prohibited.

If you feel a comment is abusive (and not just offensive), then fire away and report them.

This is the point, the rest of us 'non-mentally ill' people should understand this and behave in a way that demonstrates this understanding.

Right.

minikin

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. Telling someone you are going to murder them and describing it in detail is not bullying, it is threatening and intimidating.

2. Check out the title of the thread you are replying in.

3. If someone breaks the rules report them.

Going around in circles here...

1. Yes, and he was convicted in a court of law regarding this, so what's with the further vitriol on here? Look, if he wasn't a vulnerable individual I probably wouldn't have even posted on here... want to call a certain gangster 'overweight frederick' go for it... he deserves it, but this guy strikes me as his own worst enemy and someone in need of assistance rather than ridicule.

2. You integrated the reference to trolling in a direct response to me, that's why I pointed out that I can not be accused of diminishing the weight of his activities - so don't try attach that to me. I did not title the thread, taking part in the thread does not imply that I concur with the sentiments of the original post or it's title.

3. The mods have enough on their plate, I credit people with having the intellect to be able to discuss matters back and forth without it descending into an argument.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, I'll be more in favour of very hefty fines and prison sentences. Having been the target of internet trolls, I've zero sympathy for them.

we ve effectively been doing this for decades if not centuries, in my eyes, its not working. ive met many criminals and people that have broken laws and ended up in prison etc. ive found things such as mental health issues are amongst the most common issues these people have and have had, some from a very young age. you ll also find that our educational system is one of the main system where these individuals have had issues, i.e. our educational system is dreadful at dealing with these complex issues and in some cases, exasperates them, ive also had personal experience of this.

weldoninhio

minikin wrote: »

Going around in circles here...

1. Yes, and he was convicted in a court of law regarding this, so what's with the further vitriol on here? Look, if he wasn't a vulnerable individual I probably wouldn't have even posted on here... want to call a certain gangster 'overweight frederick' go for it... he deserves it, but this guy strikes me as his own worst enemy and someone in need of assistance rather than ridicule.

2. You integrated the reference to trolling in a direct response to me, that's why I pointed out that I can not be accused of diminishing the weight of his activities - so don't try attach that to me. I did not title the thread, taking part in the thread does not imply that I concur with the sentiments of the original post or it's title.

3. The mods have enough on their plate, I credit people with having the intellect to be able to discuss matters back and forth without it descending into an argument.

1. Have you seen his psychiatric records??Or are you basing this on his online persona? Or are you a psychic psychiatrist?

2. is just waffle.

3. You know no one has broken any rule or "attacked" you.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we ve effectively been doing this for decades if not centuries, in my eyes, its not working. ive met many criminals and people that have broken laws and ended up in prison etc. ive found things such as mental health issues are amongst the most common issues these people have and have had, some from a very young age. you ll also find that our educational system is one of the main system where these individuals have had issues, i.e. our educational system is dreadful at dealing with these complex issues and in some cases, exasperates them, ive also had personal experience of this.

OK, stints in mental health facilities where they can get the help they need. And forced withdrawal from any online activities for a period of time

minikin

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. Have you seen his psychiatric records??Or are you basing this on his online persona? Or are you a psychic psychiatrist?

2. is just waffle.

3. You know no one has broken any rule or "attacked" you.

You're completely entitled to your opinions.
/end

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, stints in mental health facilities where they can get the help they need. And forced withdrawal from any online activities for a period of time

possibly but i suspect it may not work for some, maybe many. i know people that have spent some time in mental health institutions, it doesnt sound good. we have this tendency to create institutions and systems, then under fund them or even defund them, say we ve dealt with the issue, but really we havent. its effectively what i call, an 'out of sight, out of mind approach'. i do believe this is exactly what we ve been doing with our whole judicial and prison system. we actually need a multi-dimensional, multi-institutional, multi-systemic approach to deal with these issues. you will actually find multi-systemic failure leads to things such as criminality.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

begbysback

minikin wrote: »

Going around in circles here...

1. Yes, and he was convicted in a court of law regarding this, so what's with the further vitriol on here? Look, if he wasn't a vulnerable individual I probably wouldn't have even posted on here... want to call a certain gangster 'overweight frederick' go for it... he deserves it, but this guy strikes me as his own worst enemy and someone in need of assistance rather than ridicule.

2. You integrated the reference to trolling in a direct response to me, that's why I pointed out that I can not be accused of diminishing the weight of his activities - so don't try attach that to me. I did not title the thread, taking part in the thread does not imply that I concur with the sentiments of the original post or it's title.

3. The mods have enough on their plate, I credit people with having the intellect to be able to discuss matters back and forth without it descending into an argument.

This post should be an example to everybody - numbered paragraphs should be mandatory on here

rgodard80a

Not sure if this was suggested in the thread already, but there should've been conditions to his very lenient probation.

Eg. avoid social media, restraining order from the victim(s), etc.

I believe the computer hacker Kevin Mitnick was not allowed to use a computer as part of his bail/probation/release ?

At least some form of "parental lock" on his internet account to keep him in line if he's of diminished mental capacity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mariaalice

They have had their day, content providers are beginning to take this sort of stuff seriously.

While boards or any other social media should not be giving a platform to those with mental health issues ( unless they are looking for help or advice), its the ones with no mental health issues who have normal job live normal lives that are far more worrying.

Wanderer78

mariaalice wrote: »

They have had their day, content providers are beginning to take this sort of stuff seriously.

While boards or any other social media should not be giving a platform to those with mental health issues ( unless they are looking for help or advice), its the ones with no mental health issues who have normal job live normal lives that are far more worrying.

i will stop posting!:eek:

mariaalice

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i will stop posting!:eek:

To be more precise broads and other social media should not give anyone a platform to spew aggressive nastiness or threats or other bottom feeder type opinions.

mariaalice

Interesting question those who have been caught and it became apparent it was mental health issues, were they always aggressive and nasty( personality trait ) or did there mental health issues make them aggressive and nasty.

Oranage2

So many questions - So much speculation

Does he suffer with a bit of depression or is he a full on nut job?

Is his mother at her wits end with him, does she even know or is she an enabler?

Can a man that sends threats online to an innocent victim also be subjected to online abuse?

Is this considered trolling or something more serious?

Skedaddle

Two wrongs don't make a right and he has been sentenced, albeit using the suspended approach.

My view of it is that Irish anti-harassment laws and anti-stalking laws are very weak. I know a few people who've received horrific abuse from harassers both off-line and online and I think the tools available to the Gardai and judiciary are pretty weak and it results in people's lives being made a misery.

I don't think it's just 'the internet' but rather it's a general lackadaisical approach to dealing with harassment in Ireland and I think we need to be able to distinguish between online banter and argument and actual campaigns of bullying, intimidation and harassment

Also, while a suspended sentence may seem 'weak' it can have a profound impact if it modifies someone's behaviour. Typically a sentence is suspended with the proviso that someone refrains from doing whatever it was they were doing to cause the sentence in the first place. If you step out of line the sentence can become active. It saves the state a lot of resources to keep someone out of prison, yet under supervision and I think it can be used quite appropriately at times.

Rory28

[QUOTE=Skedaddle;105806620Also, while a suspended sentence may seem 'weak' it can have a profound impact if it modifies someone's behaviour. Typically a sentence is suspended with the proviso that someone refrains from doing whatever it was they were doing to cause the sentence in the first place. If you step out of line the sentence can become active. It saves the state a lot of resources to keep someone out of prison, yet under supervision and I think it can be used quite appropriately at times.[/QUOTE]

Seeing as he said he doesn't think the crime was serious I doubt this applies to this case.

Skedaddle

Rory28 wrote: »

Seeing as he said he doesn't think the crime was serious I doubt this applies to this case.

True, but if he continues down that path, the court could simply unsuspend the sentence.

T&Cs apply to suspended sentences.

begbysback

mariaalice wrote: »

Interesting question those who have been caught and it became apparent it was mental health issues, were they always aggressive and nasty( personality trait ) or did there mental health issues make them aggressive and nasty.

Not necessarily so, I've mental health issues and it makes me placid and kind

Still +1 to numbered paragraphs

minikin

begbysback wrote: »

Still +1 to numbered paragraphs

I commend your taste in paragraph formatting / brilliant sarcasm
(either is fine)

AllForIt

I could not be more against this.

I don't agree that anyone has a right to open an account on whatever social media service that exists, where the user reveals exactly who they are for whatever reason they do so, and expect the law to counteract any comments they receive when they themselves have left themselves open to the possibility of it happening.

I always think that stuff that happens on the internet is a reflection of real life. If one left their front door open when at work, or left their keys in their car with the window down one could hardly expect the law which we all pay for to spend time and effort going around finding and prosecuting the opportunist low-life when ppl have been so irresponsible. I think that leaving oneself open for abuse on the internet is equally irresponsible, a reflection of real life.

On top of that it gives the government in any state seemingly valid reasons to further laws which give them the right to infiltrate citizens private data. No doubt while ppl get outraged about the nutjob in this case we will give up our privacy further and further until such a point that we've given it all up for such relatively trivial reasons and 1984 is a reality.

ohnonotgmail

AllForIt wrote: »

I could not be more against this.

I don't agree that anyone has a right to open an account on whatever social media service that exists, where the user reveals exactly who they are for whatever reason they do so, and expect the law to counteract any comments they receive when they themselves have left themselves open to the possibility of it happening.

I always think that stuff that happens on the internet is a reflection of real life. If one left their front door open when at work, or left their keys in their car with the window down one could hardly expect the law which we all pay for to spend time and effort going around finding and prosecuting the opportunist low-life when ppl have been so irresponsible. I think that leaving oneself open for abuse on the internet is equally irresponsible, a reflection of real life.

On top of that it gives the government in any state seemingly valid reasons to further laws which give them the right to infiltrate citizens private data. No doubt while ppl get outraged about the nutjob in this case we will give up our privacy further and further until such a point that we've given it all up for such relatively trivial reasons and 1984 is a reality.

so you are ok with public death threats?

muppetshow1451

Looks like a neo nazi out of shape

AllForIt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are ok with public death threats?

Yes, when they are done on social media or similar. Not just death threats but any and all comments whatsoever.

I don't know who this so called victim is but I don't think she's being completely genuine. She can not be unaware of the internet phenomenon, a troll. But lets say she's genuine, in any case her reaction to it is completely subjective. Another person could just ignore it and realise that the troll was just that, which in this case he was, wasn't he.

What she wants is that she can have for her own advantage a place on the internet where she can receive comments that aid her concerns and nothing negative could come out of it. To me that's as ridiculous as putting up a sign on your front door stating that your looking for a partner, just come on it, and expecting only ppl one likes to enter.

The cynical side of me says she completely overblew the case in terms of the effects the comments had on her, because she wants the right to receive comments that are in some way advantageous to her and I don't think she has that right. Who the hell gives legitimate death threats on social media anyway if they were serious when they would be identifying themselves in the process?

ohnonotgmail

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes, when they are done on social media or similar. Not just death threats but any and all comments whatsoever.

I don't know who this so called victim is but I don't think she's being completely genuine. She can not be unaware of the internet phenomenon, a troll. But lets say she's genuine, in any case her reaction to it is completely subjective. Another person could just ignore it and realise that the troll was just that, which in this case he was, wasn't he.

What she wants is that she can have for her own advantage a place on the internet where she can receive comments that aid her concerns and nothing negative could come out of it. To me that's as ridiculous as putting up a sign on your front door stating that your looking for a partner, just come on it, and expecting only ppl one likes to enter.

The cynical side of me says she completely overblew the case in terms of the effects the comments had on her, because she wants the right to receive comments that are in some way advantageous to her and I don't think she has that right. Who the hell gives legitimate death threats on social media anyway if they were serious when they would be identifying themselves in the process?

you did actually read what he posted? where he said he was walking beside her in the street? that takes it beyond just comments on the internet and thankfully the gardai take it a lot more seriously than you do.

AllForIt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you did actually read what he posted? where he said he was walking beside her in the street? that takes it beyond just comments on the internet and thankfully the gardai take it a lot more seriously than you do.

No but I do understand that we're talking about sinister menacing comments of any kind - I get that. I'm not excluding those kinds of comments in my opinions.
In fact I think the more wacky the comments are the more likely there is no intent behind them.

Do you realise that what we're talking about here is the having the law monitor social media interactions in the same way the Guards patrol the roads? Do you realise how much time and effort all of this is going to take and who is going to pay for it? I am and you are just to give anyone the right to set up their social media profile? You must be kidding, there is no way I could agree with that.

ohnonotgmail

AllForIt wrote: »

No but I do understand that we're talking about sinister menacing comments of any kind - I get that. I'm not excluding those kinds of comments in my opinions.
In fact I think the more wacky the comments are the more likely there is no intent behind them.

Do you realise that what we're talking about here is the having the law monitor social media interactions in the same way the Guards patrol the roads? Do you realise how much time and effort all of this is going to take and who is going to pay for it? I am and you are just to give anyone the right to set up their social media profile? You must be kidding, there is no way I could agree with that.

nobody is asking the gardai to monitor social media. where are you getting that ****e from?

AllForIt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody is asking the gardai to monitor social media. where are you getting that ****e from?

I made the exaggerated point to show where all of this is leading.

In the UK it is now being discussed that anyone subscribing to adult dating sites must first provide evidence of who they are by means of identification. Ostensibly to prove one is over 18 but actually it reveals ones identity.

You see where I'm coming from with this? I see that cases like this one will be used as a excuse to eliminate anonymity on the internet which amounts to legitimate surveillance and I'm totally against it.

Say my name

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes, when they are done on social media or similar. Not just death threats but any and all comments whatsoever.

I don't know who this so called victim is but I don't think she's being completely genuine. She can not be unaware of the internet phenomenon, a troll. But lets say she's genuine, in any case her reaction to it is completely subjective. Another person could just ignore it and realise that the troll was just that, which in this case he was, wasn't he.

What she wants is that she can have for her own advantage a place on the internet where she can receive comments that aid her concerns and nothing negative could come out of it. To me that's as ridiculous as putting up a sign on your front door stating that your looking for a partner, just come on it, and expecting only ppl one likes to enter.

The cynical side of me says she completely overblew the case in terms of the effects the comments had on her, because she wants the right to receive comments that are in some way advantageous to her and I don't think she has that right. Who the hell gives legitimate death threats on social media anyway if they were serious when they would be identifying themselves in the process?

I suggest you read this Wikipedia article on the murder of Jo Cox MP and more specifically about the perpetrator Thomas Mair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox

AllForIt

Say my name wrote: »

I suggest you read this Wikipedia article on the murder of Jo Cox MP and more specifically about the perpetrator Thomas Mair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox

Would he have murdered her if she didn't have an open social media account? I'm not just putting that in there as a rebuttal to your terse reply to my comments but I have though it myself at the time of the murder.