The Hansard records Timbo's third rant about how he has suffered, even though he forgets to recount the full story and completely omits the death threats sent to me and my family by him and his mates, here's an excerpt from his speech.
 |
| Click for full size version. |
Anyway, let's look at this further rant in detail, shall we?
As the House has heard, I have my own long-standing troll who continues to post malicious material about my family. For many months, I have been complaining to Google, which hosts his blog. This person has posted pictures of my teenage, under-age daughters on his blog, alongside abusive comments. They have not been removed. When he was spoken to about it, he replaced their faces with horses’ heads, alongside equally abusive comments.
Right, now I wonder why Timmy would choose to describe his daughters as "under-age", after ranting about violent sexual content on the net, is he trying to hint at something here? What a dirty minded pervert he really is, I couldn't care less whether his kids were 9 or 90, the only abuse involved was to him, their photo was irrelevant and was only used after my family, including my stepson were subjected to far worse abuse in person by Loughton and his cronies. I expect Timmy would explode if his kids were cornered by someone and abused in person, or if they opened a Xmas card with a death threat in it, but it's alright for us "trolls" isn't it, we deserve to have our kids suffer. I would add that it was only after my family received this abuse did I include his in the game, otherwise they would have been judged out of bounds, but hey, if one side ditches the rules, then it's an "all in" game.
As for me being "spoken to about it", I simply received a polite request from a representative of Sussex Police after Timmy had been bending their ears for weeks, claiming that a legal act was illegal because it upset him. This request was to obscure or pixelate their faces and concluded with the words "I have no legal power to ask you to do this I know, but...", this is not really being "spoken to" as suggested, merely an appeal to my better nature, and when asked politely I explained the reasons for my choices and then complied having made my point, I then obscured their faces with clip art, this resulted in a "thank you" form the person making this request, (I have all of this recorded in emails and so it is clearly recorded, however I will not disclose names unlike Timmy chooses to do in Parliament).
The horses faces were irrelevant, they only appeared after the original was re-published following Loughton's allusions that they were deviant in some way, during his last Parliamentary tantrum. There was no relevance to them being sexual in any way and so the repeated claims that they were "under-age" is intentionally misleading and only serves to undermine cases where there actually is some kind of deviant behaviour. Clearly Loughton puts his own privacy above the safety of other people's kids who actually are being abused and exploited.
The next part is funny,
After about six months, Google got round to doing something. It sent me this response:
“Hello. Thanks for reaching out to us. We have reviewed your request. At this time, Google has decided not to take action. Blogger hosts third-party content. It is not a creator or mediator of that content. We encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the individual who posted the content.”
That is not an effective way of dealing with clear and obvious abuse, and I am still on at Google—and it is not just Google—to take this sort of abuse seriously. If it is unable to do that for a Member of Parliament who has a platform here, imagine how many of our children must be suffering in silence because they have no means of drawing attention to this deeply abusive, offensive and completely unnecessary form of cyber-bulling.
This is the same response I got from Google when I raised the issue of Loughton and his mates Cllrs Burns, Parkin and Mendoza, when I was receiving about a hundred emails a week calling me a "Pikey C*nt", and other similar names, and repeated accusations about my being a criminal when I have no convictions for any crimes whatsoever, strangely these idiots also appeared to have some kind of scatological obsession as well, as they seemed to be far more interested in my toilet habits than any normal or reasonable person should be. This left me with no option but to respond in kind.
Loughton has repeatedly been offered the opportunity to resolve this dispute, by meeting with me and explaining his actions and his choice to lie through his teeth in parliament and spread filthy gossip to gullible numpties via his mates at the Daily Fail. He has consistently declined this opportunity, and as far as I am aware, continues to do so. He chose to start the war, yet he seems unable to step outside of his protected bubble of privilege in order to admit that he was indeed the instigator of all of this.
It is reassuring that he has finally admitted that he feels that as an MP, he should receive some kind of special treatment, well, welcome to the real world Timmy, we are all equal here, including you. Earlier in the debate he called said this:
My hon. Friend said that nuisance and annoyance may be covered by new legislation, but we are talking not about that but about downright abuse that can lead some people to commit suicide. Can he tell the House how many people have been prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003 for offences that this House would recognise as forms of cyber-bullying?
It's funny that he's almost suggesting that the Malicious Communications Act needs to be adjusted in order to make prosecutions easier, considering that if there were a lower threshold for prosecution he would have been prosecuted for the abuse that he sent to me, as he only narrowly avoided charges being laid under that very act, (not for racism or any other made up nonsense he distributed later on).
If they do lower the charging threshold for the MCA then Timmy should be a bit careful, as some of the correspondence I've seen that he has sent to other constituents, would leave him open to prosecution.
Moving on...
We also need better sentencing guidelines. There are some bits of legislation, but we have not yet seen people being hauled before the courts. Frankly, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions must do better in this regard. They complain that this is a grey area and that the thresholds are high, but cyber-bullying is cyber-violence and if that violence were committed in person in playgrounds or in pubs, it would be dealt with properly by the police and the courts. Cyber-bullying should be no different.
I agree, it is a real shame that we have not seen people being "hauled before the courts", because one of them would have been Loughton himself. The CPS could do better, I was informed that under the MCA a statement has to be "grossly offensive" as defined by case law precedence and not by the way it is received by the abused, it was pointed out to me that although "incredibly offensive" Loughton's statements were not considered to reach that threshold. Sadly the statements made under privilege would have reached this threshold, however this outdated nonsense protects people like Loughton from prosecution for their "grossly offensive" statements.
There is also the question that, if he is referring to the bullying of kids, why he uses the "Pub" comparison, maybe this is indicative of the fact that he is not concerned for kids at all, but for himself and his Tory party buddies who go around acting like thugs and start whining when they get a bit of it back.
He then states that:
I have spoken to Mr Speaker about this and he is sympathetic to our receiving guidance on how to help ourselves to guard against trolling and cyber-bullying, which we should not have to accept as we try to do our jobs.
I can give far better guidance than the poison dwarf Bercow on this, it's simple. If you don't want people to fight back, then don't start a fight with them, and relying on your exemption from the law will only push others to exploit loopholes in other laws that allow them to fight back on an even footing.
I would understand his claims if his job was being an arrogant and abusive thug, (which it sometimes appears that it is) however it isn't and he should simply do the job he's paid for and if he wants to make false and abusive statements about me, then he should expect a response, and if he is not polite to me, then what kind of response is he expecting?
And just in case you missed the picture, here it is again......
And to correct another point of fact, one of the heads is actually that of a donkey, so again Loughton tells fibs in Parliament, no change there.
ATAB
K
