(not satire – it’s the UK today!)
It’s a dubious boast I know, but it would be hard to find someone more experienced than me at being abused on-line.
I’m not complaining – I don’t just criticise people on this blog – I take the p*ss out of them which is of course much worse. So I shouldn’t be surprised if sometimes one of my targets or their supporters decides to bite me back.
During the short time I’ve been writing this blog I’ve been criticised, attacked, insulted, abused, threatened with libel, violence and even death.
However, in just the past few days I’ve noticed a real sea-change in the type of trolling I’ve been getting.
While I still get attacked, the threats of violence and bad language have completely – I mean completely – disappeared. My critics – I can’t call them trolls any more – are having to resort to finding real reasons for criticising me instead of just resorting to the usual mindless abuse.
This is great. I don’t mind being criticised – I like it even. I just don’t much like being abused or threatened with death and violence.
I put this change down to the recent publicity about the revolting trolling of high-profile women like Stella Creasy and Caroline Criado-Perez and the arrests of some of the perpetrators.
So a big well done to those and other women for achieving what’s starting to look like a real victory against trolling – a victory which benefits everyone, men, women, the famous and the unknown alike.
However, there are trolls out there who are busily hurling hurtful untruths and lies at anyone they don’t like which have resulted in suicides and wrecked lives and they are still yet to be brought to heel.
If I were to insult the dead victims of a terrible tragedy like Hillsborough on Twitter or Facebook or my blog – I would quite rightly receive a visit from the police – and possibly jail time.
Yet we still have a situation where tabloid journalists can do and say what they want about anyone they want in the national newspapers and still think they can get away with it.
It’s not Twitter users, Facebook users and bloggers who are the main problem when it comes to trolling.
It’s tabloid hacks on newspapers like the Express, the Sun and the Mail.
We regularly allow journalists in the pay of a handful of rich oligarchs to personally attack and abuse – to troll – to their heart’s content the sick, the disabled, the poor, the helpless, the unemployed and the innocent and they know there will be absolutely zero consequences for their actions.
It’s time to bring the Tabloid Trolls to heel.
.
Related articles by Tom Pride:
This is what you get when you dare to question a tabloid journalist in the UK
Daily Mail hack boasts about being able to ‘trace’ personal phone numbers of Twitter users
How Murdoch hack Isabel Oakeshott cold-bloodedly sold out her friend for money
The Sun, The Telegraph and The Mail – we’re above UK laws so we’ll ignore them
Remember this? Murdoch hack drove Denholm Elliot’s daughter to suicide
Just 4 billionaire tax exiles – friends of Cameron – will benefit from weak press regulation
Met Office takes apart Daily Mail climate-change denier and Cameron friend James Delingpole
Daily Mail uses an actress for another story to demonise the working class
Oops! The Daily Mail accidentally supports a fascist party. Again.
Daily Mail ‘fixer’ David Rose defends paedophilia accused and attacks child abuse victims. Again.
The Sun, The Mail et al – sorry, did we say 120,000 problem families? We meant 16.
.
Please feel free to comment – you don’t need to register and in the name of free speech I allow even negative comments about me too – so please go ahead.
.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Pride's Purge 
Pingback: Alternative News Network – On-line trolling is being tamed – but the Tabloid Trolls are still rampant
‘If I were to insult the dead victims of a terrible tragedy like Hillsborough on Twitter or Facebook or my blog – I would quite rightly receive a visit from the police – and possibly jail time’.
You cant defame the dead, and no matter how sickening or inappropriate comments might be there certainly should be no arrest or prosecution for doing so. What the case of Stella Creasey et al shows is that there are already laws that govern that kind of behaviour, they just need to be enforced.
LikeLike
Nice piece Tom Power to your pen, and boo hiss to our government’s lackeys who may be reading this. You should be ashamed of yourselves! Best Wendi
LikeLike
Reblogged this on kickingthecat.
LikeLike
a lot of these so called twitter trolls are nothing of the sort they just a public figure a hard time.
LikeLike
I’d agree that a bit of mutual piss taking never did any harm, but does freedom of speech mean freedom to abuse or offend?
The trouble is that the left want to have their cake and eat it with regard to freedom of speech.
They have no problem when it comes to generally threatening and abusing those who don’t share their ideology, they are prepared to go to extreme lengths to threaten the livelihoods of those who are deemed to be ‘guilty’ after trial by media or internet kangaroo courts, but they want to gag newspapers which represent differing views to their own.
They try to close down debate by labelling as offensive, racist, bigoted any views or statements which do not coincide with their own often narrow perspective.
Should there be a single compulsory national newspaper based only on what is deemed acceptable by Guardian subscribers?
As for individuals who threaten others on internet sites, Twitter, Facebook, blogs etc; there are laws already in place to deal with such matters so it’s up to the police to use their powers to enforce these laws.
LikeLike
Is it entirely helpful or useful to characterise a behaviour as the product of a political affiliation? You could just as easily replace left with right, in my opinion these are ‘methods’ employed by all sides.
LikeLike
In my experience the left including the left wing media have stifled debate about matters which affect the daily lives of many of us for over 20 years which makes the methods used seem one sided.
LikeLike
“If I were to insult the dead victims of a terrible tragedy like Hillsborough on Twitter or Facebook or my blog – I would quite rightly receive a visit from the police – and possibly jail time.”
Hi Tom – Actually, insulting dead people isn’t a crime. In your position you really should know what is a criminal offence and what isn’t!
LikeLike
Hi FinkFurst – In my position? What position would that be?
LikeLike
Regularly publishing your own comments about named people.
LikeLike
Whatever your position it’s not a crime. I guess he means as a commentator we might assume your facts to be checked, s’all. But hey we’re all fallible.
LikeLike
trafal madore – By “he”, do you mean me or Tom?
LikeLike
Tom – Did you see that I would like to ask you a question about your Simon Stevens article?
LikeLike
It’s called free speech. That means anyone has the right to an opinion. Even people in ‘my position’ – whatever that may be.
LikeLike
“It’s called free speech. That means anyone has the right to an opinion. Even people in ‘my position’ – whatever that may be.”
Of course you have a right to an opinion, but you don’t always have a right to say it. Do you think you have a right to publish whatever you like about anyone or anything?
P.S. Did you see that I would like to ask you a question about your Simon Stevens article?
LikeLike
i dont know what your talking about finkfirst but i will fight to death your right confuse me.
LikeLike
Thanks nuggy, I like that sentiment! I was trying to ask Tom a couple of things, but I guess he’s doing something more important.
LikeLike
FinkFurst – “Do you think you have a right to publish whatever you like about anyone or anything?”
1) Scroll up and you’ll see a blog post. 2) Read it. 3) Notice how it contains a pretty detailed answer to your question. 😉
LikeLike
No it doesn’t! It also contains at least one statement which I say is false and demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding on your part (the one beginning “If I were to insult the dead victims….”)
Why do you NEVER give a straight answer to a straight question? I’ll try again…… Do you think you have a right to publish whatever you like about anyone or anything? Yes or No?
[Sigh – as I explain in the article above very clearly, NOONE has the right the troll people. The blog post above is actually complaining about how journalists are getting away with saying what they like. Did you even read it? My experience of your questions, FinkFurst is you always ignore my answers.
As for a false statement – 1) It is not false. See my reply above to another commenter about being arrested for insulting the dead. 2) Even if it was false – I have the right to be wrong. This is not a news paper – it is a personal blog written for free and free for anyone to read. If you don’t like what I write – then you are also free to f**k off.]– TOM
P.S. Did you see that I would like to ask you a question about your Simon Stevens article?
LikeLike
Trafal Modone – you’re wrong. You can certainly be arrested for insulting the dead; http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jailed-man-who-wore-anti-police-800186
LikeLike
No Tom, YOU are wrong. He wasn’t arrested and jailed for insulting the dead, as you would know if you checked the story properly and actually read what was on his T shirt.
LikeLike
Also see my answer above – your statement WAS false.
[I provided you with a link to a case where a man was jailed for insulting two murdered police women. Therefore my statement is not false. Why do you insist on ignoring my answer?] – TOM
As for the principle….. actually you don’t always have the right to be wrong. You are publishing public, not private, statements. It’s not a matter of whether I like what you write or not (and actually I DO like some of it!).
[I don’t have the right to be wrong? Absolutely bizarre statement. How can anyone be right about everything? Except for you of course] – TOM
I’ll try asking my question again….. Do you think you have a right to publish whatever you like about anyone or anything? Yes or No?
[I have answered the question twice! NOONE has the right to write whatever they like – that is the whole point of the bloody blog post. No more answers now – you simply ignore them] – TOM
LikeLike
1) He was NOT jailed for insulting the dead. Read the reports properly! One of the things written on his T shirt was “Kill a cop”. I’ll say it again – YOUR STATEMENT WAS FALSE. I’m not ignoring your answers, I’m telling you that you’re wrong.
[Here’s another example of 2 people arrested for insulting the dead: http://www.idigitaltimes.co.uk/articles/471559/20130527/men-arrested-insulting-messages-facebook-lee-rigby.htm
How many more examples would I have to give you before you swallow your pride and admit you’re wrong?] – TOM
2) Read what I wrote, not what you would prefer that I wrote! I said “always”, and that clearly refers to the fact that you do not always have the right to PUBLISH things which are wrong. Do you disagree?
3) That’is the first time you answered the question. You said “NOONE has the right the troll” before, which of course is meaningless.
LikeLike
No, YOU are wrong. The two men were arrested, but only one was charged, and later that charge was withdrawn because it was baseless. Of course the police sometimes arrest people wrongfully. You know that perfectly well.
I take you back to your statement “If I were to insult the dead victims of a terrible tragedy like Hillsborough on Twitter or Facebook or my blog – I would quite rightly receive a visit from the police – and possibly jail time.”
[Here’s a third example of someone who didn’t just receive a visit from the police for posting insulting messages about a dead girl but was jailed for it too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14894576
How many more examples do you need before you admit you’re wrong?] –TOM
LikeLike
The fundamental question is – Do you still think people should be sent to jail for insulting the dead victims of tragedies?
LikeLike
Try reading the facts, not the headlines….. As far as I’m aware that case is unique, and it was based on malice in the communications. Insults were never part of the case against him. Probably also if he had fought the case then he would have won.
http://internetlawexpert.co.uk/2011/09/13/the-legal-aspects-of-the-conviction-of-sean-duffy-at-reading-magistrates-court/
[Your excuses are getting desperate. Here’s yet another example to prove that if you post insulting messages about dead people you will at least receive a visit from the police and possibly face jail time: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/in-the-age-of-facebook-insulting-april-jones-comes-with-a-heavy-price–as-matthew-woods-is-finding-out-8204291.html
Admit it – in your rush to condemn me – you were wrong. Go on you can do it. Take it one word at a time – I. WAS. WRONG.] -TOM
LikeLike
Here’s something to think about – Suppose a man is jailed for saying on Facebook that a woman who committed suicide was a whore and a slut, and it later emerges that she actually WAS a prostitute.
LikeLike
Sorry, no – Once again insults were NOT part of the case. I’ll ask you again…. Do you still think people should be sent to jail for insulting the dead victims of tragedies?
LikeLike
Tom Pride wrote:
‘If I were to insult the dead victims of a terrible tragedy like Hillsborough on Twitter or Facebook or my blog – I would quite rightly receive a visit from the police – and possibly jail time.’
FinkFurst wrote:
‘ It also contains at least one statement which I say is false and demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding on your part (the one beginning “If I were to insult the dead victims….”)’
@Fink Furst
You appear to be arguing against your own viewpoint in order to be pedantic about the exact wording of statements made on this blog and your argument seems to centre around the words ‘write’ and ‘publish’
You appear to be stating that a person cannot write whatever they want to on the internet and you are also arguing that ‘insulting dead people is not a crime’
Anything written via the medium of electronic communication to which the pulic may have access is deemed to have been published, so if Tom writes on this blog he has published it, as we who have relied also have.
Insulting dead people in everyday private conversation may not be a criminal offence but under section 127 of the Malicious Communications Act 2003 it is an offence for a person to use public electronic communications networks, such as telephone and internet to send or communicate grossly offensive material to others.
In recent prosecutions internet users have been convicted of this offence after they have posted insulting messages on Facebook with regard to deceased persons so although ‘insulting dead people ‘ is not in itself a crime the same insults if communicated via electronic media could result in arrest and prosecution.
Tom Pride had written that if he insulted the victims of tragedy on Facebook, Twitter or his own blog he would be liable to prosecution and this is correct because he would have communicated grossly offensive material to others.
You appear to be taking Tom’s point out of context.
It is immaterial whether or not the ‘others’ mentioned in the Act had read the offensive material, the Act ‘is unique in the sense that the offence is committed upon the act of communication and a person would be committing the offense even in the event that the communication was not received by the intended recipient or was intercepted prior to anyone actually taking offence to the subject matter’.
I hope that my efforts have satisfied your curiosity.
LikeLike
Aynuck – No, your argument would only be correct if “insulting” and “grossly offensive” mean the same thing, which they clearly do not. That is precisely the issue.
My argument does not “centre around the words ‘write’ and ‘publish’”, so sadly your explanation above, whilst mostly correct, isn’t very relevant.
LikeLike
FinkFurst
Although it could in some contexts be argued that ‘insulting’ and ‘grossly offensive’ may have different meanings, in the context of this discussion to ‘insult the dead victims of a terrible tragedy..’ would be an intentional act which could be considered to be ‘grossly offensive’.
To put it another way to ‘insult’ is to say or do something offensive.
To ‘offend’ is to make someone upset and angry by doing or saying something.
Under the terms of the Malicious Communications Act 2003 the publication of the insult could render the publisher liable to prosecution if could be shown that the insult could cause offence to a degree whereby the insult or insults obviously go beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in an open and diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.
This is currently considered to define what can be regarded as ‘grossly offensive’.
The person or persons to whom offence could be caused is not specified.
As previously mentioned the act of communicating such insults alone, even if the insult was not received by the intended recipient or previously intercepted by anyone who may have been caused to be offended could still result in arrest and criminal charges being put before a court.
With respect FinkFurst, your argument appears to me to be an attempt using a somewhat pedantic approach to specific wording and phraseology in order to discredit or at least to prove wrong the author of this blog.
If you disagree with the subject matter within the blogs surely it would be more productive to broadly address the statements which have been expressed using constructive counter argument?
LikeLike
Dear Aynuck
After writing all that beautifully expressed garbage I really must give you a full answer. You provided NO justification that the terms ‘insulting’ and ‘grossly offensive’ could be considered equivalent other than YOU say so! I don’t know where you got your bizarre ‘interpretation’ of the “Malicious Communications Act 2003″… firstly because no such Act even exists! I’m afraid you are completely wrong and I’ll tell you exactly why:
Neither of the relevant Acts of Parliament (Malicious Communications Act 1988 or Communications Act 2003) so much as mention insult. The practical reason is that the concept of insult is entirely subjective, i.e. it completely depends on how the object of the ‘insult’ feels about it. It is therefore almost impossible for it to be tested objectively in court by magistrate or jury, especially if the ‘insulted’ party is dead or (as mentioned in the link below regarding public order) a horse! So in addition to insult never being mentioned the the Acts noted above, it’s also primarily why it’s now also being dropped from the 1986 Public Order Act.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21020737
I also happen to think I have a right to insult people, alive or dead, but that’s another argument.
P.S. Tom – You still haven’t said whether you still think people should be sent to jail for insulting the dead victims of tragedies. I would hope that you have the integrity to either defend what you said or admit you were wrong.
LikeLike
FinkFurst, if you get a straight honest answer out of Tom Pride it will be the first ever. The man will never acknowledge his mistakes, nor admit any wrongdoing. He prefers instead to bleat about being the ‘most experienced person when it comes to abuse!’
It is of course in his own head, as I have searched for any evidence of abuse he has allegedly suffered. But as everybody seems very aware of by now, any disagreement or questioning of Tom’s opinions are of course classed as ‘Trolling’ or ‘Abuse’… By Tommy and his faithful followers…
Flogging a dead horse mate, you are wasting your time by discussing anything with a cartoon character… 🙂
LikeLike
@FinkFurst
Further pedantry from yourself I see, I shouldn’t have added the word ‘Malicious’ but my line of argument nevertheless remains the same.
Communications Act 2003:
http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/law/malcomm.htm
If you had read my earlier reply correctly you would have seen that I have not stated that either of the Acts does mention insult.
Our hypothetical discussion centres around the statement made by Tom Pride:
‘If I were to insult the dead victims of a terrible tragedy like Hillsborough on Twitter or Facebook or my blog – I would quite rightly receive a visit from the police – and possibly jail time.’
For reasons best known to yourself you appear to think that the quoted statement is incorrect, and I simply used my definitions of insult and offence quoted from the Macmillan Dictionary in order to advance my line of reasoning and to reinforce my own viewpoint, which you have quite mistakenly dismissed as ‘garbage’
A prosecution under the Communications Act 2003 could be pursued by the CPS without regard to the feelings of the intended recipient of the communication in question.
The offence is one of sending so it is commited when the sending of the message or communication takes place.
I’d agree to some degree that you may have the right to insult people, alive or dead’,
but I would strongly urge you not to publish the insult on the internet, or in a letter, a photograph, film or sound recording, so as to avoid the possibility of committing an offence under the Communications Act 2003, which could potentially place you in a similar position to that of Tom Pride were he to publish his insult on Twitter or Facebook or his blog as stated in his earlier example which we are discussing.
LikeLike
Aynuck
“….but I would strongly urge you not to publish the insult on the internet, or in a letter, a photograph, film or sound recording, so as to avoid the possibility of committing an offence under the Communications Act 2003”
I think you are a complete dickhead!
LikeLike
Hi Outlaw – I think I’m discovering that you’re dead right, so it would be an achievement if I succeed!
LikeLike
FinkFurst
Tempting though it may seem, I’m not about to stoop so low as to begin trading insulting comments with you via the internet in order to test the effectiveness of the Communications Act 2003, mainly because I believe that a person such as yourself who has to resort to typing insults when they clearly have only one idea which is then shown to be wrong must, over time, become rather frustrated, bitter and twisted.
LikeLike
I have just proved not the lack of effectiveness of the 2003 Act (which I don’t dispute), but your misunderstanding of it!!!
LikeLike
Sorry, that was ambiguous – I meant that I don’t dispute the lack of effectiveness of the 2003 Act, but I do dispute your mental capacity.
LikeLike
Aynuck – Of course you can’t trade insults, because you mistakenly think you would be committing a criminal offence! On the other hand, I do not.
LikeLike
Whereas you have left me in no doubt whatsoever with regard to your mental capacity, or rather your lack of it.
LikeLike
Ah!!!!!! So you are not averse to trading insults after all!!!!
LikeLike
For one so pedantic you appear to misread or to misunderstand what I have written yet again.
Please don’t imagine for one moment that I can’t trade insults because I stated that I wouldn’t stoop so low as to do so.
I can fuly understand however why you have no recourse other than to insult others when you have no cogent argument with which to refute the facts of the matter.
LikeLike
“Please don’t imagine for one moment that I can’t trade insults because I stated that I wouldn’t stoop so low as to do so.”
You just did!
LikeLike
Aynuck – Face facts, we’re both pedants, but I’m WAY better at it than you, and I’m expressing some sound principles at the same time.
LikeLike
Merely a gentle reproof without malice FinkFurst.
Much as I’d like to sit here fencing with you I have to work now, so please feel free to continue with your rather amusing attempts at points scoring in my absence unless or until you can come up with a valid justification of your misguided earlier statements.
LikeLike
No problem. I can wait for you to finish your lunch and your nap. When you’re approaching the age of 62 you probably need them
LikeLike
Quite possibly, but not as much as you need something more constructive than being a troll to occupy your time
LikeLike
Hi Aynuck – As this thread is about trolling and you have called me a troll, perhaps you would care to discuss that. What have I done which makes me a troll and you not?…. or do you regard yourself as a troll too?
LikeLike
See the proof of the lies of Sonia Poulton about Janette Scharenborg in her disgusting MSM article recently. http://chairmanatdvso.wordpress.com/ see the actual texts Janette sent to Sonia.
LikeLike
Here is a song especially composed and dedicated to Sonia Poulton and her twitter troll group by an exceptionally talented individual with photos of
Sonia and her gang http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTh7xHzehOA&feature=c4-overview&list=UUUEyXjC6lyh4YD5VxSKSBkg
LikeLike
World exclusive photograph. See the real Sonia Poulton and her Twitter troll gang here http://chairmanatdvso.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/jane-russell-with-the-outlaw-jimmy/
LikeLike
Hi Aynuck – If you want to call someone a “troll” and then refuse to explain why then that’s not illegal, just rude.
LikeLike
Ok, now let’s do some supersleuthing into the Supertrolls article here http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/420369/How-I-unmasked-my-vile-Twitter-trolls she accuses a dutch woman. Supertroll should be advised that just because she has not named the dutch woman that this does not mean that she has not libelled a real living entity, for anyone following her diatribe will be fully aware that she means the innocent Janette Scharenborg in Holland, and as Janette can be identified from the Express publication then Supertroll and the Express are now guilty of libeling and defaming Janette Scharenborg and I advice the lovely angel Janette to instigate libel proceedings against both the supertroll and the Express in the royal courts of justice !
Now down to the Supertrolls claims “He advised me to trace the Internet Service Provider (ISP) which could lead to the identity of who was writing about me.
Several computer technicians I work with set to work tracing my attackers.
The results revealed a woman based in Holland claiming to be an anti-child abuse campaigner. ”
This is all trollshit, supertroll does not have any computer technicians, and she uses the wrong term, she should have said IT internet forensic experts ! either way this is an admission of hacking, but no they did not locate anything to Janette’s ISP. What supertroll did was to go somewhere like here http://whois.domaintools.com/ and put in the twitter url for the lovely janettes twitter account and got details of who owns the twitter website, not details of janette in holland ! try it yourself and put in the url for supertroll. So supertroll has been telling very big porkies, no wonder supertroll disabled commenting on supertrolls Express publication. Supertroll provided no proof of any tweets, texts or phone calls and we all know you cannot believe what trolls publish especially supertrolls. You have been well and truly caught our Supertroll. Now Supertroll and the Supertroll twitter gang, i suggest you click on my name to this publication immediately.
LikeLike
Supertroll & the twitter gang have been deleting incriminating tweets like crazy. That does not protect them as twitter keeps a record of every tweet they have ever published, they have to by law. Read this interesting article about old and vanished tweets http://searchengineland.com/where-have-all-the-old-tweets-gone-33579 so Mulder, the incriminating evidence is out there, and if Supertroll ever pushes this to a criminal investigation, it is going to be necessary to recover the historic archive of all the trolls twitterings, and i bet there are some very incriminating and even more libelous twitterings that will surface !
LikeLike
SEE THIS HYPOCRITICAL TWEET FROM THE OLD HACK THIS AFTERNOON
http://chairmanatdvso.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/to-quote-sonia-poulton-tweet-today-14th-august-2013/
LikeLike
Pingback: TO QUOTE SONIA POULTON TWEET TODAY 14TH AUGUST 2013 | The Daily Male & The British Broadcasting lies Corporation
you must all see this
LikeLike
it comes to something when the daily hate mail produce their hate spewn crap and as result people go and kill them selves
LikeLike
I agree @bobchewie, the gutter tabloid daily mail must regularly cause suicides. However, the Express are the ones who paid blood money to Sonia Poulton to write that lying and hateful story http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/420369/How-I-unmasked-my-vile-Twitter-trolls that has made her severely depressed and suicidal. Janette has campaigned tirelessly for years to highlight child abuse. All the trolls head by the Supertroll have pilloried her on Twitter for months accusing her of being twitter id’s that she was not, driving her off twitter and now driving her blog offline http://misty53.wordpress.com/category/savile/, Here is a reminder of all the hateful and vile lies published by the Twitter Supertroll gang https://outlawjimmy.wordpress.com/tag/campaigner/ The vile trollshit about Janette has been in wordpress blogs all over the internet for months, spewing their vile lies and accusations at Janette, and not once have any of your Trolls published one single piece of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt of your vile and evil false allegations, not one piece of evidence about any of your claims about Janette, not a shred of evidence she was any of the tiwtter and blog characters that you have all accused her of being. Tom, your article on the following link about the evil Daily Mail Hack was great. I provide the link in case new readers of the blog post of yours miss it https://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/mail-hack-threatens-to-sue-me-for-asking-how-she-traced-twitter-users-personal-information/ I hope you will all sleep well at nights if Janette takes her life, because then her husband and children will call for a dutch police investigation into all of you and the Supertroll.
LikeLike
You members of the Supertrolls twitter troll gang all complain about Janette releasing the proof the the nasty text messages to her from Supertroll, complaining she published Supertrolls phone number when you all know very well that SuperTroll publishes its phone number freely already in the public domain on its SuperTroll website asking people to contact SuperTroll with stories for her patrons in tabloid land. Yet here http://disinfounmasked.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/janette-meachen-scharenborg/ one of you vile Trolls publish Janettes address and phone numbers, and one of you vile Trolls even located her husbands phone number. Try to sleep well because it is going to be a long time burning in hell for all of you when you finally meet your maker, hell, fire and brimstone awaits you all, all together in an undending eternal hell of fire and damnation, no way out, none at all, hell will be forever, all of you together, and who will you pick on then !
LikeLike
@ADEYBOB etc not from this end and not from me why would i want to i get enough crap from others..
LikeLike
no one wants misty to kill herself of course not….that stuff about julia o connor in kingston hospital was really bad enough
LikeLike
Sonia Poulton and her Twitter supertroll gang caused your cousin to attempt suicide yesterday Adey !
LikeLike
Not satisfied with pushing janette to the brink, yesterday they started on her husband here https://twitter.com/scabbydick
LikeLike
@concerned people can be downright evil sometimes..someone i knew took their own life because of accusations made about them..there were unfounded too
LikeLike
@not somia poulton you mean this shit? “Hi Mr Scharenborg. I see you are the husband of Janette. Has she always been a compulsive liar?”…thats not nice at all…
LikeLike
These are the disgraceful mobile phone texts sent to the “woman in holland” by Sonia Poulton Super Troll
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-07
Delete
You have run my mobile number on Twitter and your website and the police are now involved. Do not contact me again.
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
Leave a GENUINE survivor out of this. You have behaved despicably. What have you and your buddies got to hide eh? The beauty about being a real journalist is how much information is at my fingertips, Kev. You thought you could carry on but you can’t. Dear me I kind of feel for you now the truth is going to be known.
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
On behalf of my editors I would like to thank you for giving me one of the best stories so far this year, Janette. You are a woman with many interesting strings to you bow. Even genuine campaigners are coming to me now and telling the truth about you. People have worked you out. Why did this person keep creating distractions from helping child who are abused, they say? And then the penny dropped. I feel we may have to work overtime making you presentable for the camera though. That’s the problem about inner ugliness, it shows on the outside.
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
I never said we spoke. I called you love. You’re not well are you? DM will laugh their head off at you seeing as I’m freelance. I’m my own boss. Mind you sweetcheeks, I think we both know you have more to hide than I do. Oh I look forward to revealing you Janette or is it Kevin today? Lol
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
You’re a piece of filth Janette. We know about you, your history, your family, you really should’ve stayed in your pit because now you are playing with big people. Watch for that knock on the door luv! Lolololol enjoy your evening. Your wickedness is catching up with you and professionals will run you in circles.
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
I know everything about you and I am not messing. I called you twice and you didn’t pick up. Even your friends are squealing now Kevin.
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
So its not you on twitter assaulting me?
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
I’m coming for you Janette. Got people in Holland who want to interview you about your behaviour. You know you messed with the wrong person this time. Oh and I do wonder why the Huff Post keep showing up. Tsk Tsk. Its wonderful to have contacts against wicked people.
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
Oh wow Kevin people really have seen through you. All these screenshots of Janette_53…tsk tsk you have created big enemies and the thing is they are pretending to agree with you for information. That must be horrible. But then you deserve it. You watch. You’re going to get exposed. And so are those who foolishly thought they could benefit from twitter hashtags and website hits. I’m on the side of right and you know it.
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
I am aware of your history, the people you have ties with – including names and addresses. I have 10 techies who know about your false identities. You picked the wrong person to mess with. My best advice to you is to quietly disappear
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-06
Delete
This is Sonia Poulton. It has come to my attention that you may have a problem with me. In fact, I have been informed you are ‘running a smear campaign on me’. You don’t want to do that. I’m not someone who takes crap like that. Take that as a warning to pursue if you don’t sort your self out.
+447944858524(+447944858524)
05-03
Delete
Just got this message. In and out of meetings. Why would anyone think I would alter a message? What is going on here? Sonia Poulton
LikeLike
you would think that SP would have better things to do..
LikeLike
These texts to the “woman in holland” from Sonia Poulton are disgraceful, and as Tom has so eloquently pointed out, she seems to have employed “techies” to locate the woman in holland, so that is basically a MSM hack hackingg ! I believe the dutch and UK police should apprehend Sonia Poulton as sending so many texts in a short space of time, combined with the nasty tweets over a period of time is most definitely criminal harassment under the 1997 Protection from Harassment & The Malicious Communications Act 1998.
https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/365187197554528256
https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/365187713802055680
https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/331463679071641602
http://dawnwillis.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/the-astounding-140-character-troll-war-surrounding-thomaspride-and-soniapoulton/
LikeLike
“Remember those trolls @theoutlawjimmy Here’s Pt. 1 on them (tweet screenshots to be added, thanks my lovely) express.co.uk/news/uk/420369…—
Sonia Poulton (@SoniaPoulton) August 07, 2013”
Почему-то я не думаю, что мы должны см. Часть вторая от Соня
SOMEHOW I DO NOT THINK WE SHALL SEE PART TWO FROM SONIA
OP EEN OF ANDERE MANIER DENK IK NIET DAT WE ZULLEN ZIEN DEEL TWEE VAN SONIA
莫名其妙地我不认为我们将看从索尼娅的第两部分
איכשהו אני לא חושב שאנחנו נראה חלק שני מסוניה
LikeLike
SEE THIS HYPOCRITICAL DIATRIBE FROM SONIA POULTON
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/327164/A-blow-to-cyber-bullies
QUOTE FROM SUPERTROLL SONIA POULTON IN THE ABOVE RAG.
“Generally, my approach to trolls is to ignore them, while keeping in mind that they are, above all else, to be pitied. Undoubtedly, they need help. It’s clearly not reasonable or healthy behaviour to obsess so much about other people, especially those we don’t know.
PEOPLE who lead full and productive lives do not become trolls but those who are dissatisfied, and who have mental health issues, often do. Last week, critics expressed their fears about Ms Brookes’s partial victory. They worry that the power to name and shame trolls, including the possibility of prosecution, will lead to censorship and damage free speech.
I disagree. Freedom of speech should not include the freedom to bully and spread lies. Perhaps by exposing trolls it will serve as a warning that our society is no longer prepared to tolerate abuse.”
IS SONIA POULTON PERHAPS WRITING ABOUT HERSELF ? LOOK IN YOUR MIRRORS TURTLE NECK , YOU ARE TO BE PITIED, YOU NEED HELP. UNDOUBTEDLY YOU ARE NOT INDULGING IN REASONABLE OR HEALTHY . BEHAVIOUR. YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT LEADING A FULL AND PRODUCTIVE LIFE AND SEEM TO HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. YOU SERIOUSLY NEED TO CONSIDER SOME COSMETIC SURGERY, LIKE PERHAPS A ZIP ON YOUR NORTH AND SOUTH.
LikeLike
This proof that SONIA POULTON is friends with @janerussellsays & @theoutlawjimmy and others who have hounded the dutch woman like wolves after prey.
Jane Russell @JaneRussellsays 25 May
@SoniaPoulton @charlie17125066 had been proven Kev is really Janette Scharenborg & the hacks had set up a vile ploy to get stories.
Details
Jane Russell @JaneRussellsays 25 May
@SoniaPoulton @charlie17125066 Would anyone trust that, even without her feeling the need to get her fried eggs out on Twitter? What a pro!
Details
Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton 25 May
@JaneRussellsays 100 per cent Kev is Janette. And the rats all clamoured in for action
Details
LikeLike
Proof @janerussellsays is one of SONIA POULTON’S TWITTER TROLL FRIENDS
Jane Russell @JaneRussellsays 25 May
@SoniaPoulton @charlie17125066 had been proven Kev is really Janette Scharenborg & the hacks had set up a vile ploy to get stories.
Details
Jane Russell @JaneRussellsays 25 May
@SoniaPoulton @charlie17125066 Would anyone trust that, even without her feeling the need to get her fried eggs out on Twitter? What a pro!
Details
Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton 25 May
@JaneRussellsays 100 per cent Kev is Janette. And the rats all clamoured in for action
Details
LikeLike
Pingback: The wonders of blogging – insults, trolls, libel and death threats | Pride's Purge
Pingback: THE TROLLING OF TOM PRIDE REBLOG | @theoutlawjimmy -THE MAN BEHIND THE MASK
Hi there to all, the contents present at this site
are in fact remarkable for people knowledge, well, keep up the nice work fellows.
LikeLike
Pingback: Why do I get trolled most of all when I criticise the UK mainstream media? | Pride's Purge
Pingback: Twitter and the naked tabloid editor | Media Meditations