Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: James Jolley on 5 Jun 2010 18:35 On 2010-06-05 23:32:17 +0100, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) said: > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > >> I suppose so. I can't understand how he has a wife or whatever, and >> still treats people like this? It's not a question of name calling and >> such, it's a question of sticking up for onesself. > > Rowland has a wife. She must be a a remarkable person. Certainly, which leads me to wonder why this kind of thing happens? Surely, wouldn't she be aware of how he is treating others online? You'd also suspect that he'd be as angry with her over the situations he creates here, purely as an emotional outlet. Very strange way to behave.
From: Steve Firth on 6 Jun 2010 04:46 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Now imagine being locked into that situation. It must be terrifying- > certainly horribly stressful and sad. Yet all of you are willing to jump all over someone who is blind, apparently not recognising the effect that blindess has in isolating someone and making them feel vulnerable. It's not "important" as you claim to kot-tow to Rowland, he's a nasty little fucker and he delights in the fact that he can roundly insult anyone he likes then hide behind his (unverified) claims of mental illness. Not only that but Rowland's outbursts and personal attacks don't appear to match any known definition of mental illness. Although the multiplicity of parlour psychologists here like to think they know better, or their Guardian reading credentials somehow make them instant experts on how to handle people like Rowland. What a shame that all of you seem to think it's OK to whale on someone who really does have an isolating condition. Now, what's that term for people who behave like that? Begins with an 'h'.
From: Bernard Peek on 6 Jun 2010 05:14 On 05/06/10 23:26, Peter Ceresole wrote: > Bernard Peek<bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > >> Backed up by the law. Repeated attacks on someone known to be suffering >> from a mental disability are very much illegal and could lead to >> criminal prosecution and possible jail sentences. Bear in mind that >> usenet posts are archived and could be cited as evidence. > > I'd have said that the chances of anything like that happening in this > case would be vanishingly small. Courts are not totally unreasonable and > an archive of Rowland's posts here would show a great deal. None of the > bile directed at him is gratuitous in the slightest. I've only been subscribed a relatively short while, but that isn't the impression that I have. In any case there are quite a few steps before any action escalates as far as a court. -- Bernard Peek bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: Peter Ceresole on 6 Jun 2010 05:43 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Why, because you say so? Yes. Because unlike you, I'm not nasty. -- Peter
From: D.M. Procida on 6 Jun 2010 05:51
Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > > I'd have said that the chances of anything like that happening in this > > case would be vanishingly small. Courts are not totally unreasonable and > > an archive of Rowland's posts here would show a great deal. None of the > > bile directed at him is gratuitous in the slightest. > > I've only been subscribed a relatively short while, but that isn't the > impression that I have. I don't think it's true at all. > In any case there are quite a few steps before any action escalates as far > as a court. The legal status of disability hate crime (I don't think 'hate' is a useful word, but that's a different issue) is changing rapidly. Concerted efforts by disability rights groups over the last five years have made a real and surprising difference to the way it's treated by the media, by the police, the CPS, and the courts. The CPS changed its guidelines to prosecutors on crimes against the disabled very recently. The Scottish Parliament brought in new legislation last year. The number of crimes against the disabled reported by the media seems to have risen exponentially in the last three years. What has changed principally is the notion of what constitutes culpable behaviour. Previously, prosecutors' idea of a crime was a major incident. Now, a pattern of abuse or harrassment, or a series of repeated attacks, even if each on its own is not a serious incident, can be (should be) treated as a serious crime. There's obviously a difference between merely being a party in an exchange of nasty abuse and mounting a hate campaign against a disabled person. Most of what goes on here looks like the former to me, but there is one person at least (who's thankfully not around right now) who seems to be doing something that looks more like the latter. Daniele |