🚀 go-pugleaf

"macfizz@gmail.com" <macfizz@gmail.com> Wrote:

>I've written to the abuse-meisters at Google Groups quite a few times
>with no response. You could probably get its ISP to shut the troll's
>access down, but as it has told us already it can go into a cyber-cafe
>anywhere and carry on once more. I dare say some folks would like to
>find the troll's real name and address and go round to discuss the
>matter human to worm, but part of the nature of this kind of pond-life
>is its anonymity.

Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1@kidneys.mac.com> Wrote:

>The CH thing is not even trolling in the sense that I know it. It's 
>infantile, grossly offensive cross-posting on a level that way 
>out-offends "Macs suck - discuss." I've actually never seen anything 
>like this before, and it makes me wonder that if he could be located 
>then could he actually be prosecuted for libel?

Margolotta <naggingdoubt@thebackofyourmind.invalid> Wrote:

>Well he must be able to be prosecuted for something. I have resisted 
>temptation but his remark that everyone with HIV is a 'dirty faggot' got to 
>me. I know of a bloke with HIV (he sells The Big Issue in Oxford) - he's not 
>gay - he's a haemophiliac. That's right, he acquired the virus via a blood 
>transfusion. When the supplier of the blood was contacted, he didn't even 
>know he was positive - he'd never been tested. 
>
>You're right, it's not libellous, but it's surely designed to be provocative? 
>If it had been said in public, it would be incitement to riot/violence, 
>surely.
>
>There MUST be some law he can be prosecuted under, *surely*?! He can't be 
>allowed to get away with it. 

Norbert Lieckfeldt <n@lieckfeldt.com> Wrote:

>No, because there's a suspicion that he's broken the law. No-one knows 
>whether he has unless he is being prosecuted by the proper authorities 
>and convicted by a court of law. But the suspicion that he may have 
>should be enough to bring it to the attention of prosecuting authorities 
>who will come to a decision on whether to prosecute or not.

5605 <not@chance.com> Wrote:

>I refer you all to Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986. This would 
>be my start point, along with recent legislation concerning the misuse 
>of electronic services.

Graham W <graham@nospamgrahamwilson.co.uk> Wrote:

>Well, I've handed 150 of it's more offensive posts to the Old Bill, but 
>doubtless it'll make little difference in the long run. That said, the 
>OB did get rid of the 'Reverand' character on the East Anglia group a 
>few years ago for similar postings. Seems they 'knocked on his door' 
>quite early in the morning and removed computers etc. Here's hoping...

David Kennedy <davidkennedy@dmnc.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> Wrote:

>Anything that helps is good. Complaining to Google Groups - or his ISP - 
>seems to be a waste of time and space.

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>  Wrote:

>No, a few people want to see him face due process for something that *you*
>see as trollign and others see as racial hatred and homophobia.
>I don't see reporting someone to the police for hate crimes as 
>"inappropriate". Graham's to be applauded for doing the right thing.

Kit <kitzyme@yahoo.com> Wrote:

>People who believe that a law may have been breached are entitled to
>bring this fact to the attention of the authorities. 

"Toby" <tl36265@spamhole.com> Wrote:

>You'd best be careful with language like that as may well find PC Plod
>on your doorstep wanting to interview you for inciting hatred. And I'll
>be the first to stand up and make a complaint againt you.

Bonge Boo! <bingbong@spamcop.net> Wrote:

>Please feel free to do the same. Once we've got that shut down, if he
>continues, I'll just try to get other accounts closed.
>Anyone who has the know-how and inclination to get his ISP to terminate him,
>please feel free to correspond: powerbookboy@gmail.com

-- 
DLF