back to article Two Brits face criminal trial for sending 'menacing' tweets

Two people have been charged with allegedly sending "menacing" tweets to a feminist campaigner. John Nimmo, 25, of Moreland Road, South Shields and Isabella Sorley, 23, of Akinside House, Akinside Hill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne will both appear at Westminster Magistrates Court on 7 January, Scotland Yard said. The two were charged …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So...

    ...no menacing tweets to be directed at the accused then?

    Can we still send harmless abuse at them? Simple ones proclaiming them to be idiots?

    1. ukgnome

      Re: So...

      That is my understanding - the clue is in "menacing"

      1. CmdrX3

        Re: Geoff Crammond

        That would be fine, e.g. "That was a rather stupid thing to do, I think you may have a little idiot DNA in your blood" would probably be fine whereas "When I find you, I'm going to a**rape you, put a bullet in your head and bury you in a field" may not be looked on quite as favourably, and in all likelihood will have you in the dock shortly after them.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So...

      What is menacing to one person is the truth to another, it won't be long before you will get arrested for hurting someone's feelings.

      So much for free speech.

      1. kain preacher

        Re: So...

        So you think that texting I'm going to rape and kill you 50 times in one our is not menacing? you think that telling a person I'm going to rape and kill you over 50 times in one hour is not worth of the plod to investigate ? Or should ` they wait till she is dead before some action is taken? Some one tells me they are going to rape and kill me 50 times in one hour damn right I want the police involved. I don't want to be the one to figure out if these people are serious or not. I want the cops to arrest them. Seriously if some tweeted you 50 one hour saying that they want to rape and kill you, leave your body in field, you should be worried. If not I wounder about you.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Coat

          Re: So...

          "Some one tells me they are going to rape and kill me 50 times in one hour damn right I want the police involved."

          Well, first off, they can only kill you once unless they have a defibrillator and some of that stuff they stab people in the chest with in the last 5 minutes of medical dramas. And as far as the raping goes, well, 50 times in an hour - let's just say that they're probably exaggerating their prowess, if you know what I mean.

      2. localzuk Silver badge

        Re: So...

        "So much for free speech."

        Your free speech ends where it harms others. Hurting someone's feelings or offending them is very different to being menacing/threatening. Same would be said about someone shouting bomb in a movie theatre.

        The law has been clear about this for a long time, regardless of means. If you threaten someone in person you're committing an offence too.

    3. mrjohn

      Re: So...

      You could send them to their street address, publicized in the article.

      Which is creepier, being followed and liked on SNS, or being told you are being followed & liked via surface mail?

  2. James 51

    Remember a time when it was though the web would be a lawless place? Sooner or later people are going to realise that the stuff they do on line has consequences (and the law for things like libel or incitement work just fine on-line, no need for a separate ‘on a mobile device’ bit of paper). Sure, if you’re savvy enough you can make it very difficult but it seems obvious that the people sending the tweets here don’t have that.

    One thing that wasn't mentioned in the article is apparently one of the victims only heard about the arrests from the media rather than the police.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The web is an unlawless place

      It seems that lots of modern legislation only applies to electronic communication. So send your menacing messages by Royal Mail in future.

      1. Getriebe

        Re: The web is an unlawless place

        "So send your menacing messages by Royal Mail in future."

        I think there is legislation already in place to cover this - since about 1800

    3. MrXavia

      I remember a time when the web WAS pretty much a lawless place, and idiots abusing others was dealt with by administrators banning them..

      But unfortunately with the advent of twitter, the world is just full of Twits...

      1. James 51
        Childcatcher

        Bring back the banhammer.;

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. joeW

    Bit sexist really

    'Criado-Perez said she had "stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women"'

    She just assumed it would be men - now it turns out one of the accused is a woman. Will a retraction be forthcoming?

    1. wowfood

      Re: Bit sexist really

      As a man I find her comment that it's all men sending her abuse to be discriminatory. Can I press charges for that?

      1. Darren Barratt
        FAIL

        Re: Bit sexist really

        No, because you're not being threatened by her.

    2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Bit sexist really

      Well, to be fair, she said the nest of men co-ordinated the attacks. Doesn't mean that there weren't women among those actually doing the attacking (as indeed there were).

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bit sexist really

      That's interesting, Since when did "nest" become the collective name for men?

      Or is it the collective name only for the rapey ones?

      If it's freely available, I might start to use it in conversation: "Coming down the pub? There'll be a nest of us down there". Or "just popping out with the nest".

    4. Manicorn

      Re: Bit sexist really

      Its ok for women to be sexist. In that case it is socially and politically acceptable. Actually, today the only stereotype that is acceptable, is for that of the lampooned white male.

      It is important to remember that feminists dont rely on facts to prove their point, just emotions and shouts of misogyny.

      1. The Dude

        Re: Bit sexist really

        Let's not forget that feminist scientific research is based on "a feeling". Yes, I do have that from a very senior Canadian university feminist research scientist (or is that "trick cyclist"?), who said it under oath in open court.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Bit sexist really

          I think the collective term for men is "barfull".

          1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge

            Re: Bit sexist really

            'I think the collective term for men is "barfull".'

            Good suggestion. However, in this case the word "basket" could also be used, given that men who send threats to people campaigning for an image of a famous female author to be put on a banknote, should be treated as basket cases. If people make serious threats of violence in any media (or indeed verbally). simply because they disagree with them, prosecution should certainly be considered.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Bit sexist really

              @ Michael H.F. Wilkinson

              "However, in this case the word "basket" could also be used, given that men who send threats to people campaigning for an image of a famous female author to be put on a banknote, should be treated as basket cases."

              What about the women involved in sending threats? What should we call them? Should they be treated differently or exempt from this rant? Man or woman such threatening behaviour should be dealt with by law. And they should be branded the same and labelled the same for the sake of equality

      2. veti Silver badge

        Re: Bit sexist really

        These people aren't in trouble because they're sexist, they're in trouble because they were "menacing". You can be menacing without being sexist, and that will still get you in trouble; you can be sexist without being menacing, and that won't, at least not with the plod.

  4. Spoonsinger

    Do you send tweets?

    or do you post tweets? Just wondering about the correct verbage for future reference.

    1. Caff

      Re: Do you send tweets?

      You could send a tweet to someone or post a tweet on twitter

    2. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: Do you send tweets?

      I would suggest neither. I was always under the impression that you simply "tweet".

      John tweeted Sally.

      Sally re-tweeted John's tweet to Jane.

      Jane got upset at the tweet and decided to tweet John directly.

      [All sounds just a bit cuckoo really]

      1. kryptonaut

        Re: Do you send tweets?

        I think some more interesting verb conjugations are needed. I would suggest:

        "Sally normally tweets once a day",

        "John twit Sally yesterday",

        "He twote about something completely mundane",

        "Has she twat him back yet?"

        "No, she hasn't twotten anything all day"

        "Oh. He probably should have Skyppen her instead."

        "Yes, I Skope Sally last week - we Skap for half an hour"... etc.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Do you send tweets?

      You suffer tweets.

  5. Red Bren

    "it would not be in the public interest to prosecute...having particular regard to the young age and personal circumstances of the suspect"

    Don't we have youth courts to deal with young offenders? Why do "personal circumstances" allow you to avoid prosecution? Surely they only come into consideration during sentencing? Or were the accused youth's parents rich and/or well connected?

    I would be more accepting of the decision if the CPS said there was no point prosecuting because the threat wasn't credible. But it might be little comfort to the victim.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      As I ready it they didn't avoid prosecution, they were "just" prosecuted for sending menacing messages, but the CPS chose not to prosecute them under section 127 of the Computer Misuse Act as well.

      i.e. they were done for the less serious crime, due to their age/circumstances.

      1. Jonathan Richards 1

        The wrong act... @Phil

        The Misuse of Computers Act isn't in play here. It's only the Communications Act 2003, which TFA helpfully linked to. To clarify, this is a verbatim extract of the Met press release:

        <quote>“Isabella Sorley, 23, from Newcastle and John Nimmo, 25, from South Shields have both been charged with improper use of a communications network under Section 127 of the Communications Act.

        “We have also determined there is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution in respect of one suspect, whom it was alleged also sent offensive messages to Ms Criado-Perez, and have advised the police that no further action should be taken as the high threshold for prosecution has not been met.

        “In respect of one other suspect, who allegedly sent offensive messages to Stella Creasy MP, we determined that although there was sufficient evidence that an offence had been committed under Section 127 of the Communications Act, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute, having applied the Director’s guidelines and having particular regard to the young age and personal circumstances of the suspect.

        “In relation to the fifth suspect, we have asked the police carry out further investigation before a charging decision can be made.”

        </quote>

    2. The First Dave

      @Red Bren

      I may be reading this wrong, but I think the CPS are saying that the suspect is at least partially "educationally challenged" (or whatever the current euphemism is.)

  6. codejunky Silver badge

    Feminists are irritating

    but menacing tweets threatening anyone is unacceptable. I do wonder if anyone will slap her down for her prejudice against men though saying- "stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women". There are good and bad people as well as good and bad groups. The unfortunate fact of equality is that both parties are as good and evil as the other.

    Now it is down to the process of law. Hopefully without any 'ists' perverting the course of justice.

    1. Darren Barratt
      Trollface

      Re: Feminists are irritating

      "stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women"

      She knew it was men, as women just don't have that level of organisational skill </sacasm_for_the_hard_of_thinking>

      1. John Riddoch
        Trollface

        Re: Feminists are irritating

        In a similar vein (including Sarcasm):

        "Women can be sexist too. It's just that men, as in most cases, are better at it."

    2. Martin

      Re: Feminists are irritating

      Where does it say anywhere that Caroline Criado-Perez or Stella Creasy are feminists?

      And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?

      Or are you just assuming (not unreasonably) that they are likely to be feminists as they are intelligent campaigning women? And what is wrong with that? Why should that irritate you?

      They are simply women just trying to be treated fairly by a male-dominated world.

      Some feminists are irritating - like those who make comments like "Men are all closet rapists". Most have more sense, and don't make stupid generalizations. Perhaps you should try avoiding similar stupid generalizations.

      1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Feminists are irritating

        @ Martin

        "...Where does it say anywhere that Caroline Criado-Perez or Stella Creasy are feminists?"

        Says it in the article. In the first frigging line.

        "Two people have been charged with allegedly sending "menacing" tweets to a feminist campaigner."

        1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

          Re: Feminists are irritating @Lord Elpuss

          So it appears men lack reading skills, too.

        2. Martin

          Re: Feminists are irritating

          Two people have been charged with allegedly sending "menacing" tweets to a feminist campaigner..

          Oops. Missed that. Sorry.

          Doesn't invalidate my post, though.

      2. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Feminists are irritating

        @ Martin

        "And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?"

        Referring to a group as a nest of men, especially since she appears to be wrong and there be women involved. But the comment does seem to suggest prejudice that it must be that horrible group (men). However I do get irritated at anyone calling themselves feminists just because feminist is the fight for better rights for women (equal or better than for men) and a complete disregard for equality. Kinda like when a religious person claims they need religion to be 'good'. Funny how the collective group (or nest if you like) demand better treatment for just their group.

        "They are simply women just trying to be treated fairly by a male-dominated world."

        In which third world country are they? There is still inequality and there is still sexism but from all and both sides, yet in the name of feminism we have acts of sexism and discrimination which are acceptable.

        "Some feminists are irritating - like those who make comments like "Men are all closet rapists". Most have more sense, and don't make stupid generalizations. Perhaps you should try avoiding similar stupid generalizations."

        I hope you reread that comment. You complain at me generalising (associating themselves under a banner I disagree with) yet generalise that most have more sense than irritating feminists. I cant really answer that but I did find it funny.

        Equality should be for all. Equal opportunity, equal to make our choices and not making the situation us and them. That goes far beyond just women. And back to the point that nobody (even feminists) should suffer such threats as she did. Lets hope the law does right

      3. Manicorn

        Re: Feminists are irritating

        It says LITERALLY IN THE FIRST SENTENCE that Criado-Perez is a "Feminist Campaigner", so it would stand to reason (if you can accomplish that) that she is indeed a feminist.

        Basing my opinion on what feminists have done to "irritate me based solely on this article" not a whole hell of a lot. But once again, your prove how asinine you are but wanting to make it just about THIS article. Feminists enjoy shouting down other people, and self victimizing themselves in the face of this so called patriarchy. The simply fact is that many are over privileged white women who really dont have much to complain about. The average feminists does a poor job expounding exactly why she is a feminist when you take away her favorite lines crying about misogyny and so forth. The simple fact is, women have the same rights as men, and can do anything a man can.

        Sexism goes both ways, and there is a reason why there are gender stereotypes. Women want to emasculate men, and I for one am proud to be a man. Since I am proud to be a man I am daily told I should be castrated, or killed or some other random threat. It is just the internet, therefore it doesnt bother me, but this is just showing its a two way street.

        Criado-Perez is a nobrain fuckwit who hopefully will fade out of the medias attention, because that is her ultimate goal. If she wanted to contribute to the world, maybe she could go help people in Africa or what not.

        Sidenote: Thank god I live in the US were we dont have laws like this yet.

        1. Psyx

          Re: Feminists are irritating

          "The simple fact is, women have the same rights as men, and can do anything a man can."

          A rather simple world-view there.

          You appear to have missed wanking with pineapple rings and leaving town without their husband's permission in the Gulf States.

          1. Red Bren
            Paris Hilton

            @Psyx - Doing what with pineapple rings?

            The man from Del Monte says "Yes! Yes!! Ohhh God YES!!!"

        2. earl grey
          Devil

          Re: Feminists are irritating

          Maybe, but calling her names is not the same a saying you're going to ride her bicycle until the tyres go flat.

        3. Tim Elphick

          Re: Feminists are irritating

          Whilst prejudices either do frustrate me and I am aware that it goes both ways, I feel moved to pick up on a few points:

          Perhaps privileged people are best placed to campaign on behalf of those less so. Perhaps if we relied on the most downtrodden to change the world we'd make slow progress.

          I haven't experienced much in the way of gender discrimination in my workplaces, however you simplify things by saying women can do anything a man can. One of the things that come to mind first are certain military roles.

          Also, perhaps if you are daily told that you should castrated you might like to tone down whatever it is you are doing at the time. It happens to me much less frequently.

          Just some thoughts for you.

        4. TrishaD

          Re: Feminists are irritating

          @Manicorn

          "Criado-Perez is a nobrain fuckwit who hopefully will fade out of the medias attention, because that is her ultimate goal".

          What evidence do you have to support that remarkable assertion? She thought it'd be nice to have a major icon of English literature celebrated on a banknote.

          You know, that hardly qualifies her as a fully-paid up member of the Society for Cutting Up Men.

          As a consequence of that rather modest suggestion, she got death threats and threats of rape. Is that proportionate? I kind of think not.

          "Sidenote: Thank god I live in the US were we dont have laws like this yet"

          Splendid. Stay there.

      4. bigtimehustler

        Re: Feminists are irritating

        I think you'll find its the nest of men comment that got us a little annoyed, particularly when it turned out a female was allegedly involved in the attack on her. Perhaps she shouldn't assume men are always responsible for this stuff.

        1. <shakes head>

          Re: Feminists are irritating

          need to agree on this as a "nest of" is normally used with vipers, and the assoiation is that men are the same as vipers, just a choice of emotice language

      5. <shakes head>

        Re: Feminists are irritating

        if you really believe the world is male dominated then you have a problem, different areas are dominated by different genders, try being a bloke in HR, or on th eother hand a girl in the stock market.

        i have a real dificulty in the idea that equal means the same. men and woman are different but should be valued as people the same. th elaw seems to thing that we are all the same.

        <rant off>

      6. Getriebe

        Re: Feminists are irritating

        "Where does it say anywhere that Caroline Criado-Perez or Stella Creasy are feminists?

        And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?

        Or

        .....

        stupid generalizations. Perhaps you should try avoiding similar stupid generalizations"

        Well said! Neither woman can be accused of being a feminist in the mould of Germain Greer, for example, at her most strident

        All they were trying to do is get some representitive of 51% of the population on a bank note after a succession of of bearded Victorians (excluding Britannia of course)

        If you were part of the shit storm of tweets against the many idiots who started these uncalled for tweets, you would have know there were a lot of offensive tweets and indeed most came from men - unless women use Andrew or other in their monika.

      7. The First Dave

        Re: Feminists are irritating

        "And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?"

        The number one thing they did was stir up a hornet's nest over alleged sexism, thereby side-stepping the issue that the best female role-model they could come up with was an irrelevant, long-dead populist author, completely missing women who made a positive contribution to society, such as Ada Lovelace, Florence Nightingale or even Emiline Pankhurst...

        1. TrishaD

          Re: Feminists are irritating

          "The number one thing they did was stir up a hornet's nest over alleged sexism, thereby side-stepping the issue that the best female role-model they could come up with was an irrelevant, long-dead populist author, completely missing women who made a positive contribution to society, such as Ada Lovelace, Florence Nightingale or even Emiline Pankhurst..."

          Well, I dont know, Dave...

          I might suggest that they selected a purposefully non-controversial choice (Jane A is certainly popular, but I'd hardly say she was 'populist') because she'd be a widely accepted candidate for banknote immortality. Now that's not stirring up a hornets nest. The hornets nest was stirred up by the brain-dead tweeters who thought that rape threats were an appropriate response.

          It's hardly barking mad Andrea Dworkin stuff now, is it?

          Dont feel that the following comment is addressed to you personally, but some of the responses on this thread stagger me. It seems to me that for some people (ok, so make that 'some men') the tiniest suggestion that approximately 50% of the human population might be represented in the most trivial fashion is evidence that the feminists are all out to get them .

          What a bunch of Cry Babies.

          They wanted Jane Austen on a £10 note - not elect her as President of the United Nations for goodness sake.

  7. teebie

    The thing about this case is...

    ...something I will maybe comment on when the court case is done. Be careful people.

  8. The Dude
    Coat

    one way street?

    Well, now I know. In future I should not ignore menacing comments from radical militant man-hating feminists, and will instead forward them to the police for action. Who wants to bet that "it would not be in the public interest to prosecute" any threatening/menacing feminists?

    In fact, I think the judge already said feminist "opinions", no matter how libellous, dishonest or threatening, are protected by "freedom of speech". Double standard again <sigh>.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: one way street?

      You "think the judge already said" that, based on what exactly?

      Feminists don't have any legal immunity. If a feminist libels or threatens you, you have exactly the same recourse as if anyone else does it. On the other hand, if a feminist just calls you a kneejerk troglodyte misogynist wanker, your only recourse is to call her a pug-ugly PC media whore. All of which is "fair comment" and the law has nothing to say about it, because no threats of violence or libellous statements are involved on either part.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I find feminists threatening and man hating. Where do I report them?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Your Mum

      Or Mom if you prefer.

    2. Potemkine Silver badge

      Did any feminist threaten to kill you or rape you? If so you should refer to the police.

      If you just don't like their arguments, then you just have to don't listen to them.

    3. almagpie

      MENACE is the distinguishing feature

      The key here is the actual, real *menace* in the tweets from Nimmo and Sorley to Criado-Perez. The actual threats to rape and kill. Is that so hard for everyone to grasp? I'm disheartened by the mysogynist crap on this thread generally, but mostly by the false equivalence being drawn between the really frightening, actual illegal threats of graphic sexual violence and murder directed at Ms Criado-Perez which caused her to fear for her safety, and general feminist rhetoric and opinion, which can be simply ignored.

      Members of my fellow gender, you're being dicks. Recognise that Nimmo and Sorley actually caused genuine fear and there was a proper role for the police and courts in this case, but when a feminist writes a polemic suggesting "all men are bastards"* there really is not.

      *Also most feminists don't actually believe this, they just want equality, in my experience, is that so unreasonable?

  10. Tommy Pock

    On the plus side...

    ...the entire episode brought about a 'Twitter silence' protest, meaning Caitlin Moran and her quinoa-munching Notting Hill friends stayed away from Twitter for an entire day.

    We should make this an annual event.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tweeting 1880s style

    I say, I find that young lady to be rather annoying.

    I would jolly well like to verbally interject and make my point very clear to her.

  12. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

    If only there were some kind of button on Twitter where you could block annoying trolls from tweeting you.

  13. Potemkine Silver badge

    Twitter is full of hate speech

    For fascists, racists, homophobes, sexists, twitter is a haven.

    That's the main reason why I closed my account.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Twitter is full of hate speech

      Speaking as a left-wing Chinese one-legged lesbian of restricted growth, I have to say I agree.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The sarcasm detector's on, right?

    I feel proud to live in a country where we can jail people for saying things we don't agree with.

    Really, I'm tearing up...

  15. seansaysthis
    Holmes

    what do you mean we cant threaten people with impunity ?

    The fact is that these people made several serious threats. They made them on very public medium and now people are surprised that this has resulted in prosecution. This has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with you cant just say what you want without consequences. Just because its twitter doesn't mean you can threaten people. Theres a difference between disagreeing with someones position on a topic and threatening to rape them . I'm going to rape you seems to be the new Godwins law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like