*sigh*
We have laws for this already, I'm willing to bet, it's just another INTERNET PANIC.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:08, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

Exactly, shouldn't be too hard to find and arrest the person that did it.
The problem is when it's retweeted a couple of hundred times.
£50-£100 fine for anyone who did that paid directly to the woman should stop it happening as much.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:11, Reply)

Works for me
It really shouldn't be difficult. Trying to regulate Twitter on the other hand would be next to impossible, it would be simpler to make it illegal.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:13, Reply)

It is shit anyway
Burn it
( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:13, Reply)

i agree that twitter should be illegal
i tried to use it once but failed to see the point
(Quintno EXPERIMENT RUINED CANCELLED, LEFT 4EVER, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:14, Reply)

It is like another language to me
#RT @cock /arse
( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:15, Reply)

wtf is a hashtag and why would it be trending? @quintenoftiweak?

(Quintno EXPERIMENT RUINED CANCELLED, LEFT 4EVER, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:18, Reply)

No idea
I think its some kind of paedo/gay slang
( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:22, Reply)

I'm alright with this suggestion.

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:16, Reply)

and the costs of policing payment of the £50 fine?
why don't we let the CPS and their lawyers rack up hundreds of thousands of pounds in enforcing them?
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:15, Reply)

I knew your ears would prick up at the costs!

( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:15, Reply)

i think they should be named and shamed themselves
and made to post pics of themselves in their underwear or something.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:19, Reply)

But imagine the costs!

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:21, Reply)

i'd rather my taxes went on forcing people to flash their underwear
than on moats for MPs or benefits for fourth generation scouse scroungers, frankly!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:23, Reply)

I'd rather my taxes went on keeping the welfare state running
and not on much else. Shame we can't choose how our taxes are spent.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:29, Reply)

Needs MOAR pants

( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:32, Reply)

Pants are soooo crypto-fascist

( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:34, Reply)

yes
although if we could, i'm not sure the welfare state would do as well out of many people as it would out of you, my friend!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:36, Reply)

What can I say?
I'm a fucking saint, innit?
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:44, Reply)

you bloody exhibitionists
we all know your just putting forward this idea so you can out monty as a rapist and get your tits on the telly
(Quintno EXPERIMENT RUINED CANCELLED, LEFT 4EVER, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:21, Reply)

silly quentin
my television is not close enough to the sofa for that
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:24, Reply)

i like it when i'm right
public execution is always the answer
(Quintno EXPERIMENT RUINED CANCELLED, LEFT 4EVER, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:15, Reply)

and your suggested alternative?
I'm up for anything that would work and cost less. But seriously trying to police Twitter would cost silly money, which leaves shutting it down (see how well that worked on Napster) or leaving it free of all restriction.

I'm only suggestion enforcing whatever laws we have.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:18, Reply)

it would be nice if people weren't so disgusting as to post details that they know are meant to be private
but some people think they are above the law.

so, depending on what they have posted, i would have a sliding scale of criminal sanctions. but it would have to apply to all social media. and it would have to be proportionate.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:22, Reply)

Yes, it would, sadly we have already established this is not the case.
I'm Happy with this solution, it's just a slightly more involved version of Chompy's "fine 'em" suggestion, probably means more work for struggling lawyers, so all good then. I'd be interested to see the results (I know it's infeasible) of tying each and every on-line post to someone's actual identity, in effect you'd have to post under you real name, I wonder how it would effect some people's personas.
( CQ Knows the truth, all of it., Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:27, Reply)

"Bill Clay" would be fucked

( sporters I’m sincerely gratitude to you, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:28, Reply)

Doesn't really work that though, a newspaper wouldn't think twice about paying that, they'd gladly pay it and more so.
and an individual could never pay a fine. I guess you could scale it to followers, but even then, anyone anywhere can make an account, you can verify ownership for someone who wants to be verifide, but you can't really if they don't.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 23 Apr 2012, 16:47, Reply)