Let's all "be kind"

[cromwell]

MP's are proposing to "crack down" on "online hate" as a result of David Amess's murder.
In particular to crack down against trolls, those threatening MP's and to do away with on-line anonymity.

This all sounds very well until you ask what has any of the above got to do with Amess's murder?
It doesn't have anything to do with it. The murderer seems to have been an Islamic fanatic inspired by on line Jihadist material; nothing to do with someone saying "I think Mr MP X is a ****"".

The suspicion is that MP's are using this murder to further intimidate and suppress opinions that they don't like, in particular criticism of themselves.
And all this don't forget from a group of people, one of whom (Angela Rayner) habitually describes her opponents as "Tory scum".
Perhaps they should put their own house in order first?

I may be alone in this but I think their actions are deeply cynical, and hypocritical too.

[TheOstrich]

Two strands to this really - firstly, whilst you have acceptance of "confrontation politics" - the very basis of the House of Commons and its public modus operandi - you will generate anger, and inevitably that will translate into the public threats MPs have been suffering. Now I could easily describe Rayner as "Labour Scum" after her public utterances, and I'm sure more than a few Tory supporters would agree with that epithet. She does not help the situation in any way - and there are numerous other MPs, past and present - who are guilty of the same charge. If anything, it's a situation which is getting worse. So calls to end political confrontation and "be kind" have to be better than the alternative of allowing things to deteriorate further.
But you are right, all three recent attacks on MPs at surgeries have been as a result of political extremism - two Islamic and one right-wing. Prior to that, of course, it was the IRA.

Secondly, on-line anonymity. The concept is a complete joke, a non-starter - how can you prove who you are to Facebook or Twitter when you register with them? They have no access to public records like DoB or addresses, and there's no way Governments (well, apart from the Chinese, I guess) will allow access to such personal information databases by private companies. There will have to be major radical changes to society before we see the internet being effectively "policed".

[medsec222]

I agree Cromwell. Fanatics are not influenced in any way by the behaviour of others. They are on a mission and they will not be stopped by kindness.

Regarding the use of inflammatory language, it is rife on line. At one time there was always someone on our local community Facebook page citing Tory scum on every political post. It seems to have died down over the last couple of months as there are very few political posts, and I suspect this is down to the administrators who review every post before allowing them on the community page.

Regarding MPs and the use of inflammatory language, I am quite shocked that anyone who is representing a community of all different shades of opinion could think it was OK in any way to refer to others as scum. It is no use her trying to excuse her lack of respect for other people by suggesting the use of the word Tory scum is common amongst working class people. Well for her information a lot of working class people rise above such language and so should she.

[Workingman]

So, being "falsely" kind is going to turn us all into angels is it?

And it is going to be done by cracking down on social media? Err, no, because as Ossie points out re on-line anonymity:

The concept is a complete joke, a non-starter.

Would registration for such sites have to be with government approval or through a government portal?

Since the day language was invented people have said nasty, and nice, things about other people. Today it goes on in cafes, bars, clubs, on buses, in canteens and at parties. How will big government stop that - microphones everywhere?

Another worry, for me, is about who sets the bar for what is or is not allowed. It's a slippery slope.

[Kaz]

You can't legislate for maniacs, religious or otherwise

[cromwell]

No you can't Kaz, because they play to their own rules, not ours.

[Suff]

And knee jerk reactions like this simply remove rights and entitlements to the general public. Many of those rights and entitlements are, justly, used to criticise our MP's as Cromwell and Ossie say.

I am never in favour of any kind of legislation on this kind of event until a sufficient amount of time has passed that it is based on logic and has at least the slightest chance of working.