15 year old boy hangs himself after suffering online abuse.

Syl wrote:It should be against the law to have sites that don't take responsibility for online abuse, especially sites that are aimed at youngsters.

I think the internet is encouraging this hateful attitude that its OK to abuse others without restrictions.
If the sites themselves wont monitor what's said and wash their hands of online bullying bad enough to cause kids to kill themselves, the law should step in.  

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:It should be against the law to have sites that don't take responsibility for online abuse, especially sites that are aimed at youngsters.

I think the internet is encouraging this hateful attitude that its OK to abuse others without restrictions.
If the sites themselves wont monitor what's said and wash their hands of online bullying bad enough to cause kids to kill themselves, the law should step in.  

All the social media sites are guilty of this.

There should not be a special case for children, as there should be a zero tolerance policy on any site to such abuse. As anyone can be effected. Personally, I think kids should set up their own social media sites, that they can moderate themselves where they invite friends to join. These sites are out to make money and will do little to combat such problems, as there is very little in laws that can prevent this. The reality is if one site shuts down, they just join another and the cycle continues.

Sites like this are not totally responsible, because everyone is responsible for joining and staying on a site.
Parents have to take some responsibility to know what their children are on and what is going on within these sites.

Its never okay that such abuse goes on and even worse when someone takes their own life, but the difficulty is being able to prevent this via the internet. What people should do is get all their friends to leave when such abuse happens and like I say start their own social media site. If people go to these sites, then they set themselves up for being targets. If a site has a reputation, then to me, you leave that site and encourage others to do the same.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


All the social media sites are guilty of this.

There should not be a special case for children, as there should be a zero tolerance policy on any site to such abuse. As anyone can be effected. Personally, I think kids should set up their own social media sites, that they can moderate themselves where they invite friends to join. These sites are out to make money and will do little to combat such problems, as there is very little in laws that can prevent this. The reality is if one site shuts down, they just join another and the cycle continues.

Sites like this are not totally responsible, because everyone is responsible for joining and staying on a site.
Parents have to take some responsibility to know what their children are on and what is going on within these sites.

Its never okay that such abuse goes on and even worse when someone takes their own life, but the difficulty is being able to prevent this via the internet. What people should do is get all their friends to leave when such abuse happens and like I say start their own social media site. If people go to these sites, then they set themselves up for being targets. If a site has a reputation, then to me, you leave that site and encourage others to do the same.

I agree that there should be a zero policy for such abuse on any online site Thor, but I don't agree that sites appealing to youngsters should not be given special priority, they should.

If a site is designed to attract youngsters, they should monitor it more carefully....if they don't the law has to step in and close these sites, imo a lot more should be done to prevent sites opening which encourages or ignores bullying.

Parents should obviously monitor what their kids are doing online, but most kids have phones with aps...and a parent cant follow a kid round 24/7.
Sadly in todays world many kids live their lives as much online as not....its hard for them to come off sites and aps  that their friends are on.....its even hard for some adults to leave a forum or a social site once they get used to it, and I have known some stay on them long after they were being abused.....so if adults find it hard, how much harder is it for kids, who just want to be accepted?

The blame lies with the abusers and the people who allow this, not the victims.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree that there should be a zero policy for such abuse on any online site Thor, but I don't agree that sites appealing to youngsters should not be given special priority, they should.

If a site is designed to attract youngsters, they should monitor it more carefully....if they don't the law has to step in and close these sites, imo a lot more should be done to prevent sites opening which encourages or ignores bullying.

Parents should obviously monitor what their kids are doing online, but most kids have phones with aps...and a parent cant follow a kid round 24/7.
Sadly in todays world many kids live their lives as much online as not....its hard for them to come off sites and aps  that their friends are on.....its even hard for some adults to leave a forum or a social site once they get used to it, and I have known some stay on them long after they were being abused.....so if adults find it hard, how much harder is it for kids, who just want to be accepted?

The blame lies with the abusers and the people who allow this, not the victims.

What you are doing then is relegating vulnerable adults to being of lesser importance.
Sorry Syl, I would never agree that adults who are vulnerable online to verbal abuse, should not be given the same priority as children. As they are all at risk. All you do is help a proportion, when all should be helped. The problem is abuse and how victims are effected.

All sites should monitor more carefully, but that is sadly unlikely going to happen and like I said, if the site is just shut down, another will simple open in its place or those abusive will just move to another site already functioning. You need to look at the root cause those abusing and get social media sites to collaborate to block abusive people online on their sites.  You see it happen already here with posters being anonymous being banned. So your first battle is to get all media sites to collaborate to tackle abuse head on together. Where they share information.

Blame also lies with those who use and those who allow them to use.. As again people are responsible for what they do. You can walk away from these sites and people should walk away from something that is clearly appalling towards other people. There is a responsibility here with parents and the people online. That goes without saying. If the site is doing nothing, then people should leave, its common sense. The reality is that technology via the internet is making it near impossible to tackle these problems. Its shame people do not enjoy chatting in person as much as they do other the internet and many people have become addicted to social media and technical gadgets

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

What you are doing then is relegating vulnerable adults to being of lesser importance.
Sorry Syl, I would never agree that adults who are vulnerable online to verbal abuse, should not be given the same priority as children. As they are all at risk. All you do is help a proportion, when all should be helped. The problem is abuse and how victims are effected.

All sites should monitor more carefully, but that is sadly unlikely going to happen and like I said, if the site is just shut down, another will simple open in its place or those abusive will just move to another site already functioning. You need to look at the root cause those abusing and get social media sites to collaborate to block abusive people online on their sites.  You see it happen already here with posters being anonymous being banned. So your first battle is to get all media sites to collaborate to tackle abuse head on together. Where they share information.

Blame also lies with those who use and those who allow them to use.. As again people are responsible for what they do. You can walk away from these sites and people should walk away from something that is clearly appalling towards other people. There is a responsibility here with parents and the people online. That goes without saying. If the site is doing nothing, then people should leave, its common sense. The reality is that technology via the internet is making it near impossible to tackle these problems. Its shame people do not enjoy chatting in person as much as they do other the internet and many people have become addicted to social media and technical gadgets

People who bully online obviously do target vulnerable people Thor, that's what bullies do.
All children are vulnerable because they have not yet learned the mechanisms of coping that most adults have.
Yes there are obviously some vulnerable adults, but unless they are mentally impaired in some way they have developed a more sophisticated outlook.......so given that, yes I do think sites aimed at youngsters should be prioritised.

However, the problem originates from the abuser, not the abused, no matter what age they are.
There must be some way to monitor and stop online abuse of this level.
Its a different world now so different laws should be introduced. It can be done, we all know of some sites that have been closed down so its not impossible to act on complaints and do something about it.
Maybe people don't take online abuse and bullying seriously enough till someone actually kills themselves because of it.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

People who bully online obviously do target vulnerable people Thor, that's what bullies do.
All children are vulnerable because they have not yet learned the mechanisms of coping that most adults have.
Yes there are obviously some vulnerable adults, but unless they are mentally impaired in some way they have developed a more sophisticated outlook.......so given that, yes I do think sites aimed at youngsters should be prioritised.

However, the problem originates from the abuser, not the abused, no matter what age they are.
There must be some way to monitor and stop online abuse of this level.
Its a different world now so different laws should be introduced. It can be done, we all know of some sites that have been closed down so its not impossible to act on complaints and do something about it.
Maybe people don't take online abuse and bullying seriously enough till someone actually kills themselves because of it.

Sorry but that is just ridiculous to say only children are far more vulnerable, when anyone is dependent on their self esteem, confidence and insecurities. Children have not learned many mechanisms (which is actually more of a defense against them being suicidal), as they are less likely to be troubled by the many things of adult life, adults deal with. Children are less likely to feel rejected as they live generally with family who love them. Where many of those vulnerable adults do not have many people or any in their lives. There are plenty more vulnerable adults suicidal as far more kill themselves.

This is just the US and as can be seen children are least suicidal.

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

That is a major factor you are ignoring here and why your reasoning on just children is clearly flawed Syl.

So how are you going to Police this based off all my previous points?

How are you going to get social media sites to collaborate?

I would love to see social media sites free from such abuse, but how are you going to manage this?

Its not against the law to be verbally cruel or verbally abusive to someone, unless its threats, or crosses over into hate speech.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Sorry but that is just ridiculous to say only children are far more vulnerable, when anyone is dependent on their self esteem, confidence and insecurities. Children have not learned many mechanisms (which is actually more of a defense against them being suicidal), as they are less likely to be troubled by the many things of adult life, adults deal with. Children are less likely to feel rejected as they live generally with family who love them. Where many of those vulnerable adults do not have many people or any in their lives. There are plenty more vulnerable adults suicidal as far more kill themselves.

This is just the US and as can be seen children are least suicidal.

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

That is a major factor you are ignoring here and why your reasoning on just children is clearly flawed Syl.

So how are you going to Police this based off all my previous points?

How are you going to get social media sites to collaborate?

I would love to see social media sites free from such abuse, but how are you going to manage this?

Its not against the law to be verbally cruel or verbally abusive to someone, unless its threats, or crosses over into hate speech.

Thor, if it was ridiculous to say that children are more vulnerable than adults there would be no laws protecting children...so its actually pretty ridiculous to deny it.

You say children are less likely to feel rejected  because they live within a family who love them, but the worse thing about online abuse is that in comes into the home....if a child is being bullied or targeted online they have no safe place to go because it follows them into the very place where they should feel safe.

I don't know how the internet can be made safer for vulnerable people..... but perhaps the first step is to clamp down on online abuse and sites that encourage or ignore it.
Because social internet sites are so vital in modern life, perhaps special organisations, including the police, could be set up to investigate and moderate more closely what's happening.

As the next world wide threat seems to indicate that it will be via the internet, it sounds like a good idea to me in any case to spend money on monitoring the www.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Thor, if it was ridiculous to say that children are more vulnerable than adults there would be no laws protecting children...so its actually pretty ridiculous to deny it.

You say children are less likely to feel rejected  because they live within a family who love them, but the worse thing about online abuse is that in comes into the home....if a child is being bullied or targeted online they have no safe place to go because it follows them into the very place where they should feel safe.

I don't know how the internet can be made safer for vulnerable people..... but perhaps the first step is to clamp down on online abuse and sites that encourage or ignore it.
Because social internet sites are so vital in modern life, perhaps special organisations, including the police, could be set up to investigate and moderate more closely what's happening.

As the next world wide threat seems to indicate that it will be via the internet, it sounds like a good idea to me in any case to spend money on monitoring the www.

Really what laws about verbal abuse? So you show me where children are more protected within the law with this? So yes it is very ridiculous as to what you are saying.

They have no safe place to go? Eh? The reason is they have kept secret what is going on and if they had not, they would have the support of their family. The reality is children are far less suicidal due to the many mechanisms they have not developed yet, that you see prolific in adults. So more than anything a child does have a safe space and can remove themselves from the space where the abuse is. Just like an adult can. What happens to adults is they are already in a suicidal place and are often pushed over the edge with bullying and hate. Children are far less likely to be in this position. As can be seen by those who are suicidal. So you want to give priority to those with the least likelihood of being suicidal. Which is not tackling the problem at all around the abuse itself.

So you realize there is very little that can be done, so the next step is for people to not be members of places that have a high risk of aggravating mental health for people. I mean if a product is not good for you, and you actively use that product. Then you are setting yourself up for harm to yourself. People are sadly becoming more and more reliant on technology and are losing the ability to communicate face to face. Its only going to create a less confident society, where people hide behind the internet.

So what ill clamping down on sites achieve?

Zero, they will either set up elsewhere, of those who abuse will move elsewhere.

Like I said, it requires collaboration between social media sites to tackle the problem, but its not financially viable for them to do so. Ethically completely wrong of course, but that is the reality here.

There is a simple solution to the problem here, until abuse is eradicated. And why we have warning signs to something dangerous.

"Keep out, its dangerous for your health"

Raggamuffin wrote:There's clearly something else going on if someone kills themselves over online abuse, whether they're young or old. I don't think it's particularly relevant if they have friends or family either. In fact, they probably assume that their friends or family think the same as the online bullies, and that makes it much worse.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really what laws about verbal abuse? So you show me where children are more protected within the law with this? So yes it is very ridiculous as to what you are saying.

They have no safe place to go? Eh? The reason is they have kept secret what is going on and if they had not, they would have the support of their family. The reality is children are far less suicidal due to the many mechanisms they have not developed yet, that you see prolific in adults. So more than anything a child does have a safe space and can remove themselves from the space where the abuse is. Just like an adult can. What happens to adults is they are already in a suicidal place and are often pushed over the edge with bullying and hate. Children are far less likely to be in this position. As can be seen by those who are suicidal. So you want to give priority to those with the least likelihood of being suicidal. Which is not tackling the problem at all around the abuse itself.

So you realize there is very little that can be done, so the next step is for people to not be members of places that have a high risk of aggravating mental health for people. I mean if a product is not good for you, and you actively use that product. Then you are setting yourself up for harm to yourself. People are sadly becoming more and more reliant on technology and are losing the ability to communicate face to face. Its only going to create a less confident society, where people hide behind the internet.

So what ill clamping down on sites achieve?

Zero, they will either set up elsewhere, of those who abuse will move elsewhere.

Like I said, it requires collaboration between social media sites to tackle the problem, but its not financially viable for them to do so. Ethically completely wrong of course, but that is the reality here.

There is a simple solution to the problem here, until abuse is eradicated. And why we have warning signs to something dangerous.

"Keep out, its dangerous for your health"

Children are more vulnerable than adults and the law acknowledges this and protects them...an accepted fact  in real life , so why should the internet be different.
Sites that encourage youngsters to join should be more closely monitored....I cant see why this isn't clear to you or anyone else tbh.

Closing these sites  and punishing the owners with hefty fines might deter them from starting again....if they do rinse and repeat.
There are many reasons why people kill themselves, abuse by cowardly faceless bastards on the internet should never be one of them....especially for a child.
Yes the answer is to log off, that's an adult brain with life experience telling you that....something a 15 year old doesn't yet have.
And not everyone has loving caring parents even if the youngster did choose to confide in them, if they did kids far younger than 15 would not be watching God knows what via the internet.

So we can sit here and blame the parents, the kids, the sites, the modern compulsion to live life through technical means rather than face to face....but the bottom line is the blame lies with the people who log in to bully, and as they obviously enjoy this and wont stop voluntarily unless they are also found and punished, measures should be made to make them stop, ie, supervision of sites which attract kids and encourage abuse.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There's clearly something else going on if someone kills themselves over online abuse, whether they're young or old. I don't think it's particularly relevant if they have friends or family either. In fact, they probably assume that their friends or family think the same as the online bullies, and that makes it much worse.

The point is those who commit suicide already have mental health issues Rags. If people do not reach out to others, they end up instead forming barriers around them and make themselves far more vulnerable. Many seclude themselves away from those who could help and in some cases you would be right to say they would see friends and family as believing the same of them. That though shows that if they reached out the support could be given to them. Many suicidal people actually seek out to people, but suffer some of the worst forms of depression. Sadly men are far more likely to kill themselves than women. There are varying reasons for this, but to me we need to tackle mental health issues as much as we do abuse online.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The point is those who commit suicide already have mental health issues Rags. If people do not reach out to others, they end up instead forming barriers around them and make themselves far more vulnerable. Many seclude themselves away from those who could help and in some cases you would be right to say they would see friends and family as believing the same of them. That though shows that if they reached out the support could be given to them. Many suicidal people actually seek out to people, but suffer some of the worst forms of depression. Sadly men are far more likely to kill themselves than women. There are varying reasons for this, but to me we need to tackle mental health issues as much as we do abuse online.

They might not have particular mental health issues before the bullying, or maybe they do but they're not aware of it. What is strange is that they can't just turn away from it or switch off the computer. It's as if they want to read that stuff to confirm what they already think of themselves maybe?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Children are more vulnerable than adults and the law acknowledges this and protects them...an accepted fact  in real life , so why should the internet be different.
Sites that encourage youngsters to join should be more closely monitored....I cant see why this isn't clear to you or anyone else tbh.

Closing these sites  and punishing the owners with hefty fines might deter them from starting again....if they do rinse and repeat.
There are many reasons why people kill themselves, abuse by cowardly faceless bastards on the internet should never be one of them....especially for a child.
Yes the answer is to log off, that's an adult brain with life experience telling you that....something a 15 year old doesn't yet have.
And not everyone has loving caring parents even if the youngster did choose to confide in them, if they did kids far younger than 15 would not be watching God knows what via the internet.

So we can sit here and blame the parents, the kids, the sites, the modern compulsion to live life through technical means rather than face to face....but the bottom line is the blame lies with the people who log in to bully, and as they obviously enjoy this and wont stop voluntarily unless they are also found and punished, measures should be made to make them stop, ie, supervision of sites which attract kids and encourage abuse.

Again what law on verbal abuse? You keep making the worst possible unsubstantiated claim around verbal abuse. Kids are protected from different forms of abuse, there is nothing that gives them special protection with verbal abuse. And there is a massive reason why. Kids are less likely to be effected as adults are because they have not developed the many mechanisms that adults have. They are far less likely to worry compared to adults. So I ask again show me the laws?

Verbal abuse takes many different forms...bullying, personal attacks, subtle threats....if you call someone a racist name online is that OK?... No...so why should calling someone an ugly bitch, or a piece of crap better off dead be any better?

That's what happens on some of these sites aimed at kids, this particular one encourages others to 'speak openly' about other posters...ie....say anything you want en masse to drive someone to despair, as has obviously happened in this case.

So you punish the sites and fine them and the abusers get away with it and just move on else where.

Bravo.

No....I would trace the abusers too....name and shame, fine them or their parents if they are underage for not parenting properly. It can be done, it has been done in the past.

As what have you achieved?

Nothing

No, not everyone has loving caring parents, but the point is around your ridiculous claim to make a policy to prioritize protecting those least likely to commit suicide.

OMG how pathetic. I am not saying that the children and parents are only to blame, but they are partly to blame, of which they are. So the blame is within all areas here and actually many people do not commit suicide due to abuse. So clearly the abuse is just the tipping edge, which pushes people over. That means tackling the root cause here, that of mental health itself. That we give far better support to those suffering mental health issues. You will never sadly eradicate verbal or cruel abuse. You have to help people overcome what is essentially nothing more than words.

Outside influences can cause depression, which in turn can affect how a person acts.....its a catch 22, especially in children.

Words are meaningless unless you give meaning to them.

So the issue here is more about helping those with mental health issues. As its near impossible to stop the abuse. If people are far better equipped to deal with abuse thrown their way. Then they are less likely to kill themselves, are they not?

As the best way to eradicate verbal abuse, is to render its effect meaningless. I mean what happens when people ignore or rise above the verbal abuse? The abuser just gets more wound up and looks silly.

Syl wrote:

Verbal abuse takes many different forms...bullying, personal attacks, subtle threats....if you call someone a racist name online is that OK?... No...so why should calling someone an ugly bitch, or a piece of crap better off dead be any better?

Thorin wrote:
If you call someone a racist name online that is hate speech, as its based around their race.
What is even more absurd is you seem to think I believe any abuse is okay.
Can you show me where I have?
Hence the absurdity of your reasoning above.
Let me repeat for those hard of hearing.
I am against all forms of abuse
There is no law around verbal cruelty or abuse unless it crosess over into threats and hate crimes.

Is that clear Syl?

That's what happens on some of these sites aimed at kids, this particular one encourages others to 'speak openly' about other posters...ie....say anything you want en masse to drive someone to despair, as has obviously happened in this case

Thorin wrote:What?
Again, many of those children who commit suicide suffer from mental health issues or low self esteem and are driven over because of how they already suffer clearly depression. Your argument again fails to tackle the point why you want to protect children who are least suicidal over all others who are far more suicidal. Its just blatantly absurd. Not based on reasons but emotional attachment to children. So you need to stop with the poor play the child is worst off here, when in facts its actually adults and even more so men more susceptible to suicide. Yet I state to protect all. You though want to prioritize helping those less effected.

No....I would trace the abusers too....name and shame, fine them or their parents if they are underage for not parenting properly. It can be done, it has been done in the past.

Thorin wrote:

What?

So you want social media companies to break the law by giving out personal information? Which could then lead to further crimes based off then counter hate?
Seriously? That is your suggestion?
And how on earth are you going to fine people for free speech, when it does not break the law?
You want to fine under sixteens for being verbally cruel?

WTF

And where are you going to draw the line on what you would make illegally verbally cruel here?

Outside influences can cause depression, which in turn can affect how a person acts.....its a catch 22, especially in children.

Thorin wrote: Come again?
So you understand the problem is depression and that the reality here is tackling this?
Yes?

We are talking of vulnerable kids being hounded by online abuse. They have no safe haven because it happens inside and outside the home, if they had the ability to ignore it and turn the tables there would be no problem in the first place.
In an ideal world kids would never be affected by what their people  say about them, they would just smile and stand tall....but this is the real world not a fairy tale.

Raggamuffin wrote:There are more suicides in older people than young people - ie, teenagers, so the problem is not just online bullying. I can't think how to deal with the problem of online bullying except for parents to keep their children off the internet or only allow them to use it in their presence. If they're accessing it via phones, don't let them have a phone, unless it's a very basic one with no access to the internet.

I'm not blaming the victims here, but catching online bullies is very difficult, let alone pinning the death of someone on them.

Syl wrote:We are going round in circles and you bring in different factors which just complicates matters.

Round and round we go...the bottom line is you think children should not be given extra protection on sites online aimed at youngsters....I do, so we wont agree on this.

You think if the child ignored abuse and simply logged off there would be no problem....I say more should be done to trace and stop online bullying, and if need be close and prosecute sites that encourage it.

You put the onus on the victim to stop abuse I prefer to focus on the abuser.

You point out the negatives I try to look for the positives.

Sadly to late for this lad and others who are presently being tormented similarly.

Raggamuffin wrote:There are more suicides in older people than young people - ie, teenagers, so the problem is not just online bullying. I can't think how to deal with the problem of online bullying except for parents to keep their children off the internet or only allow them to use it in their presence. If they're accessing it via phones, don't let them have a phone, unless it's a very basic one with no access to the internet.

I'm not blaming the victims here, but catching online bullies is very difficult, let alone pinning the death of someone on them.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There are more suicides in older people than young people - ie, teenagers, so the problem is not just online bullying. I can't think how to deal with the problem of online bullying except for parents to keep their children off the internet or only allow them to use it in their presence. If they're accessing it via phones, don't let them have a phone, unless it's a very basic one with no access to the internet.

I'm not blaming the victims here, but catching online bullies is very difficult, let alone pinning the death of someone on them.

Why cant more be done to catch online bullies?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There are more suicides in older people than young people - ie, teenagers, so the problem is not just online bullying. I can't think how to deal with the problem of online bullying except for parents to keep their children off the internet or only allow them to use it in their presence. If they're accessing it via phones, don't let them have a phone, unless it's a very basic one with no access to the internet.

I'm not blaming the victims here, but catching online bullies is very difficult, let alone pinning the death of someone on them.

The point being missed here Rags, is if words alone is what causes people to kill themselves.
Is that why those who have killed themselves done so?
Where do we base the bar on sensitivities here?

Now where groups suffer discrimination through prejudice hate speech. Its not the words effecting them, its the effect of the hate against them that creates the prejudice.

Its like I say words are meaningless , unless meaning is given to them.

If ever there was a better way to tackle abuse, is as I say to render its negative effect meaningless. If people are not going to feel insulted over abusive words, they are then not going to be upset. This is why to me with tackling abuse, we end up looking at protecting sensitivities via the law and not empowering people to overcome abuse itself.

We certainly need laws to protect people from discrimination, but the reality is here, there is no correlation that words cause people to kill themselves.

I agree on your parenting points and why everyone has to play their part to deny those out to abuse, the radiance they crave.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There are more suicides in older people than young people - ie, teenagers, so the problem is not just online bullying. I can't think how to deal with the problem of online bullying except for parents to keep their children off the internet or only allow them to use it in their presence. If they're accessing it via phones, don't let them have a phone, unless it's a very basic one with no access to the internet.

I'm not blaming the victims here, but catching online bullies is very difficult, let alone pinning the death of someone on them.

Thank God the cases of kids killing themselves is rare, children should be free from any sort of stress that drives them to think of suicide.

Most kids now have various means of accessing the internet, sadly from a ridiculously young age, banning them from using phones etc would stop them seeing the online abuse, but it would single them out from their peers, and if they were sensitive to begin with that would cause fresh problems....most kids just want to fit in.

Why cant more be done to catch online bullies?
Its a huge problem now, we have  slander and libel laws, why cant these be monitored online just as they are in print?
Tracing online bullies and closing down internet sites is possible, its been done in the past.....whilst people believe they can act with immunity they wont ever stop will they.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The point being missed here Rags, is if words alone is what causes people to kill themselves.
Is that why those who have killed themselves done so?
Where do we base the bar on sensitivities here?

Now where groups suffer discrimination through prejudice hate speech. Its not the words effecting them, its the effect of the hate against them that creates the prejudice.

Its like I say words are meaningless , unless meaning is given to them.

If ever there was a better way to tackle abuse, is as I say to render its negative effect meaningless. If people are not going to feel insulted over abusive words, they are then not going to be upset. This is why to me with tackling abuse, we end up looking at protecting sensitivities via the law and not empowering people to overcome abuse itself.

We certainly need laws to protect people from discrimination, but the reality is here, there is no correlation that words cause people to kill themselves.

I agree on your parenting points and why everyone has to play their part to deny those out to abuse, the radiance they crave.

I don't think it's the words which are causing the harm, it's how many people are saying the same thing - ie, it's ganging up. If a young person has abuse hurled at him by a gang, but has mates who simply hurl abuse back, he's less likely to get upset. It would all be very unseemly of course, but there would be less damage done to the one person. I think that young people in particular generally want to "fit in", and if several people are telling them that they don't, they're going to feel different and very alone.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:We are going round in circles and you bring in different factors which just complicates matters.

Round and round we go...the bottom line is you think children should not be given extra protection on sites online aimed at youngsters....I do, so we wont agree on this.

You think if the child ignored abuse and simply logged off there would be no problem....I say more should be done to trace and stop online bullying, and if need be close and prosecute sites that encourage it.

You put the onus on the victim to stop abuse I prefer to focus on the abuser.

You point out the negatives I try to look for the positives.

Sadly to late for this lad and others who are presently being tormented similarly.

No you are making a very poor case here as I have easily reasoned and you still hold out a poor view to prioritize children who are least likely to commit suicide. On an issue around suicide.

Children need protection. We have laws to ensure they are protected. Why should they not have the same level of protection online?

No I think we need to help those with mental health issues, low esteem etc to become empowered and not be phased or hurt by any verbal abuse thrown at them. That you render verbal abuse as meaningless. That if a person is not mentally able to do so. Then yes they should take themselves away from harm, as far away as possible until they are able to deal with this.

Of course we need to help people with mental health issues in every way possible....and not addressing and confronting online abuse and bullying aimed at vulnerable kids (and adults) is doing the exact opposite.

You stated to make the problem worse by introducing a method that would create a cycle of hate. By naming and shaming people who have broken no law. I fail to see what that achieves, when you best disarm hate, with reason and showing that those abusive. Are rendered redundant with their hate, if you render their abuse meaningless.

Many of the comments people see about themselves online are  libellous.
If someone breaks laws or acts anti socially they are named and shamed and punished, if the same rules applied online people would learn not to do it.

You have pointed out only negatives here when I have posted positives and positives ways to tackle verbal abuse.

Are you telling me its negative to empower people to overcome their sensitivities over words thrown at them?

Nope....I'm saying don't put all the onus onto the victim, some people are not able to help themselves, that's why we need to protect them.

What next, shall we ban ridiculing religion, because we know some people act with violence due to their sensitivities over things said to them?

Hence everything you proposes is negative.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:


Why cant more be done to catch online bullies?

On what crime?

Why do you think the Police is not treating this as suspicious?

Syl wrote:

Children need protection. We have laws to ensure they are protected. Why should they not have the same level of protection online?

Thorin wrote:
Children have protection through the law on many things. You seem again wrongly to think they need special protection due to verbal abuse. Even after i have shown your reasoning to be flawed and that they are less likely to commit suicide. So your only reason to introduce something of inequality is based on nothing more than they are children and not the risks to whether they would commit suicide. That is why emotive arguments fail at the first hurdle.

Of course we need to help people with mental health issues in every way possible....and not addressing and confronting online abuse and bullying aimed at vulnerable kids (and adults) is doing the exact opposite.

Thorin wrote:
So I have told her how to combat online abuse. In that you do not react to this and instead use wit and reason to then render the abuse meaningless. How is then protecting those insensitive helping them combat dealing with abuse, by inventing laws to criminalize verbal abuse?

So as far as I am concerned you are not addressing the problem at all and want to continue the problem by shielding those who have not learnt to deal with verbal abuse.

Many of the comments people see about themselves online are  libellous.
If someone breaks laws or acts anti socially they are named and shamed and punished, if the same rules applied online people would learn not to do it.

Thorin wrote:
Well if they are libelous, then they can sue not only the site, but obtain from the site who has been libelous. What an utter moot point.
So again what law have they broken by being verbally cruel and verbally abusive, for you to then create a system, based on possible vengeance on those who are so pathetic they verbally abuse? Does your naming and shamming not become part of that same abuse towards something that is not a crime?

Do you not see how utterly negative what you are suggesting is?

Do you think that will stop abuse?

No

What will is rendering their abuse meaningless

Nope....I'm saying don't put all the onus onto the victim, some people are not able to help themselves, that's why we need to protect them.

Thorin wrote:
Who has put all the onus here on the victim?
Nobody. As already I have stated those most vulnerable need the best support and help. That when they are unable o deal with abuse, that they take themselves out of the firing line. So to those who cannot help themselves, then they need all the help they can get and even more to help them get away from something that makes them feel far worse

That is a no brainer

The opposite in fact, I am pointing out positive solutions, you are putting all the onus on the victim to sort it themselves.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Thank God the cases of kids killing themselves is rare, children should be free from any sort of stress that drives them to think of suicide.

Most kids now have various means of accessing the internet, sadly from a ridiculously young age, banning them from using phones etc would stop them seeing the online abuse, but it would single them out from their peers, and if they were sensitive to begin with that would cause fresh problems....most kids just want to fit in.

Why cant more be done to catch online bullies?
Its a huge problem now, we have  slander and libel laws, why cant these be monitored online just as they are in print?
Tracing online bullies and closing down internet sites is possible, its been done in the past.....whilst people believe they can act with immunity they wont ever stop will they.

There's such a huge amount of online traffic, who is going to monitor this stuff? Closing particular internet sites would only have the same effect as stopping a young person looking at the internet - the bullies would simply use another site.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


On what crime?

Why do you think the Police is not treating this as suspicious?

I don't know.
Why did police not take the girls abused by Pakistani gangs seriously?
Why was the hundreds of complaints about Saville and his cronies abusing children countrywide for decades not taken seriously?

Maybe a copper could join and explain.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's such a huge amount of online traffic, who is going to monitor this stuff? Closing particular internet sites would only have the same effect as stopping a young person looking at the internet - the bullies would simply use another site.

Special organisations need to be set up to police certain sites if they have complaints.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know.
Why did police not take the girls abused by Pakistani gangs seriously?
Why was the hundreds of complaints about Saville and his cronies abusing children countrywide for decades not taken seriously?

Maybe a copper could join and explain.

So now you are equating physical rape and people not believing them to verbal abuse?

Seriously?

Talk about a throw in the towel argument.

Is people not believing someone the same as someone having verbal abuse thrown at them?

Pathetic

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So now you are equating physical rape and people not believing them to verbal abuse?

Seriously?

Talk about a throw in the towel argument.

Is people not believing someone the same as someone having verbal abuse thrown at them?

Pathetic

No, stop twisting.

You asked why the police haven't seen this as suspicious, I pointed out that many times they don't find things suspicious that turn out be very suspicious indeed.


My heart goes out to how this lad suffered and the grief his family are now going through....and that's all I can say.

Create and spread your personal feedback URL to gather anonymous and honest feedback about you.

Raggamuffin wrote:What is this Sayat site anyway? It's closed for maintenance at the moment, but it says this:

Create and spread your personal feedback URL to gather anonymous and honest feedback about you.

What does that even mean? Why would anyone want anonymous and "honest" feedback about themselves?

Raggamuffin wrote:It sounds completely ridiculous, but it is supposed to be for people who are over 18. I think it's time that young people took more notice of age restrictions rather than think they're just a suggestion.