* Posts by liam burrows

6 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Nov 2012

Facebook reassures adland: We've got s**tloads of users

liam burrows

Adblock Plus

Adblock Plus makes Facebook usable for most people.

Top prosecutor warns troll-hunting cops not to choke courts

liam burrows

"Any law which results in more cases than can be handled is obviously out of step with public opinion."

Of course it isn't. If there are more cases than can be handled that may simply reflect on the inability of the legal system to fulfil its function. And I would argue that this is exactly what is happening. Public opinion is very much that the trolls are a menace which need to be dealt with. Unfortunately, we don't have enough policemen or courts to deal with the abusers.

"Effectively mass civil disobedience is a sign of instability in a society."

Not in this case because what we are still talking about a vanishingly small number of idiots with very loud mouths who think it is appropriate to abuse others over the internet. The vast majority of internet users are more than capable of keeping a civil tongue in their mouths whilst exercising their free speech. But their voices often get drowned out by the loud squawking of the troll idiot army

liam burrows

Re: You do not have the right...

I may not have the right not to be offended, but by the same token do not have the right to be offensive, and it just so happens that my right not to be the victim of your offensiveness is enshrined in law. You might not like it, but tough.

liam burrows

Re: harden the **** up

Why should I harden up just to please you and your troll friends? Don't I have the right to peaceful enjoyment of the internet? Or are you claiming that the internet has no space for those who wish to pursue their interests without being abused by idiots?

liam burrows

"The director of public prosecutions has warned that millions of offences citing section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act* could end up in court if cops handing out charges fail to approach such cases in a measured way."

Presumably the same sort of measured approach should be applied to crimes such as burglary and violence, which also end up in the courts? If not, why not?

I'm appalled by Starmer's approach to this. If evidence suggests a crime has been committed then it should be taken to the courts. It isn't in Starmer's remit to decide that some crimes are unworthy of due process of law.