JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

This may be of interest to UK members.

I have just been informed that if abusive posts are made to ANY site, regardless of the HOST country, if the abuse comes from a poster in the UK to a person in the UK on that site, and is deemed to be abusive, then they can be prosecuted under UK law.

Especially in light of the recent trouble

Sorry USA members who have dislikes, take care UK members

robbygb Loc: UK

You want to hope that Graham Thirkill doesn't read this as you have just called him a PRATT and a MORON in a previous post.
However, are you looking to increase your 35K government hand-out by prosecuting someone from this site? :lol:

eye2eye Loc: Chicago, Illinois

So what would constitute abuse under this law or is it a matter of interpretation? What are the penalties or does it depend on the severity? Seems like an awful lot are being too sensitive. Usually it just requires a hand slap from admin.

Graham Thirkill Loc: Idylic North Yorkshire, England UK.

robbygb

robbygb
I think this applies to mere mortals not prima donna Gods like Jr1. If he got
fined we would pay it he get's everything free. He gets £35,000 every year Social Security equivalent to over 54,000 dollars. Don't forget he got £1,500 for a single photograph two or three months ago, he did a wedding round about the 27th July. He did a paid shoot where abused the old man and sold 100 dvd's in August. He has shoot bookings that I won't bother to show on here but it's somehow found it's way to the DHSS with other things that he boasts about, shame. Iv'e hinted at him for long enough but the individual keeps saying I'm a farmer and talks about pigs in his posts to me. Graham Thirkill 098

Spindrift62 Loc: Dorset, England. U.K.

Can't help thinking that JR has got you two wound up, which was probably not his ambition in this particular post. As for calling someone a prat and a moron (I haven't read that post yet) sorry guys but I've seen far worse than these insults in UHH comments. If you don't like what he has to say don't read the posting. I ignore anything that F16 writes as it is gibberish nonsensical tripe. Just do the same with JR. If he doesn't get a response he will either give up or move on to some one else. In regard to his posting above, I'm not sure as to its accuracy but even if true I doubt that what goes on here would qualify for a prosecution. If you think that your posting might contravene the law don't send it. Simples!

Graham Thirkill Loc: Idylic North Yorkshire, England UK.

Spindrift
With all due respect to you, I am confused as to who you are talking to, also you don't say which posting' you are referring to with the quote "regard to his posting above, I'm not sure as to its accuracy". Which posting to you mean? your posting is the bottom one and all the other 4 are above your one. Sorry, but I am interested in what you mean. If you are referring to the £35,000, that is what JR1 posted that he gets anually in benefits from our government. He says, and I quote him, "However I always have been and still am far far far better off than if I were working".
Maybe this will help you understand the situation a little better.

Cheers for now, Graham Thirkill 098

Spindrift62 Loc: Dorset, England. U.K.

Sorry should have pressed the 'quote reply' button.
There are some posters that delight in winding people up with 'information' that can neither be attributed to a source or be proven as correct. They then just sit back and await the inevitable verbal backlash. If you follow these threads for any length of time you will get to know the culprits. My comments regarding JR's posting today (the first one at the top of the page) is a case in point. Has there been a law passed recently that allows prosecution under these circumstance? What constitutes 'abusive'? The legal ramifications regarding prosecutions would be/are endless and a new law isn't going to be on the statutes in the immediate future. As to the figures you are quoting, I'm confused as to what this has to do with JR's initial posting. They would appear to be unsubstantiated statements made in other postings and nothing to do with this thread. I don't know if they are true or just a wind up. If JR is in receipt of that amount then that is his and the Governments business, not ours, and as such does not really have a place on this site. The only reason for him to bring it up is to illicit responses such as yours, don't make life easy for him. Hope this answers your questions regarding my posting

DennisK Loc: Pickle City,Illinois

Sorry? I don't want that kind of censorship on the internet.I'm pretty thick skin,and as long as someone isn't trying to harm me or mine,I don't get terribly upset with just words.

Graham Thirkill Loc: Idylic North Yorkshire, England UK.

Spindrift62

Thanks for posting your reply. I understand what you are saying. It was jr1 who
gave out all the information about his finances. Being someone who who worked for 50 years and never had any time out of work took umbridge as did others. This was brought into this thread by another member as it was all relevant to the original jr1's original thread. I am very sorry if It has upset you in any way but people who work hard as I have don't like to hear of people saying they get £35,000 per year in benefits. I disagree that jr1 can swear at people and then send a post of this nature. I hope you see the relevance now.
Cheers, Graham Thirkill 098

Spindrift62 Loc: Dorset, England. U.K.

[quote=Graham Thirkill]Spindrift62

Thanks for posting your reply. I understand what you are saying. It was jr1 who
gave out all the information about his finances. Being someone who who worked for 50 years and never had any time out of work took umbridge as did others. This was brought into this thread by another member as it was all relevant to the original jr1's original thread. I am very sorry if It has upset you in any way but people who work hard as I have don't like to hear of people saying they get £35,000 per year in benefits. I disagree that jr1 can swear at people and then send a post of this nature. I hope you see the relevance now.

Not upset in the slightest. I too have worked and paid taxes from the day I left school to retirement and I also resent the fact that it is possible to be better off claiming benefits than working. All I'm saying is be careful of being dragged into drawn out arguments over unsubstantiated claims. Anyway if JR's photo work is as good as he alleges then he will soon be off benefits and be a tax payer like the rest of us.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

For me the beauty of the internet is that it’s not supposed to be under the control of any government. I can express my opinion and any-one can disagree with me. If such a law was in the pipe-line it would be a knee-jerk reaction to a few cases that have been in the media recently. These cases, (in my opinion), have been down to lack of parental control. Sure there are some things that should not be depicted, but government recourses would be far better spent ensuring they didn’t happen in the first place.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

I am sorry to say that the US thinks it is in their best interest to control the Internet with laws and taxation. The Internet is suppose to be free of any interferes but I think we have lost a lot in privacy.