Reading man jailed for dead girl 'trolling' insults
Reading man jailed for dead girl 'trolling' insults
Author
Discussion

y2blade

Original Poster:

56,321 posts

245 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
this is a real p-ss boiler mad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-148...



A Berkshire man has been jailed for posting abusive messages online about a schoolgirl after she committed suicide.

Sean Duffy, 25, of Reading, was handed an 18-week sentence for posts on social networking sites about Worcestershire teenager Natasha MacBryde.

He previously pleaded guilty at Reading Magistrates' Court to sending indecent or offensive communications.

Police said Duffy also posted abuse about dead teenagers in Northumberland, Gloucestershire and Staffordshire.

Duffy, of Grovelands Road, admitted two offences of "trolling" a term used to describe the trend of anonymously seeking to provoke outrage by posting insults and abuse online.
Being bullied

They related to Facebook and YouTube posts about Miss MacBryde, 15, from Bromsgrove, who Duffy had never met.

He was traced by police through information from his internet service provider and arrested.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

This person hid behind the computer screen with no feeling”

End Quote Mark Drew, father of Lauren

Miss MacBryde had thrown herself under a train in February after being bullied.

Duffy subsequently posted anonymous messages on a remembrance page - "Monday 14th February will always be remembered as Tasha MacBryde day" - set up by her 17-year-old brother James to allow friends and family to pay their respects to the teenager.

In one of the posts he called her a slut. He also posted a video on YouTube, entitled Tasha the Tank Engine, showing the children's character Thomas the Tank Engine with Miss MacBryde's face.

Jo Belsey, prosecuting, said the family were "understandably outraged, disgusted and hurt".

In a statement read to the court, her father Andrew MacBryde said he "could not believe anyone could stoop to such depths" after his son told him of the online posts.

He added that Duffy's actions had "added to the horror of dealing with the death of their beautiful daughter".

The magistrates were also asked to consider three other cases when sentencing Duffy, who the court heard suffers with alcohol problems and has Asperger's syndrome.
Given Asbo

He had also posted offensive messages about Lauren Drew, 14, of Gloucestershire, who was found dead after suffering a suspected epileptic seizure, Hayley Bates, 16, of Staffordshire, who died in a car crash, and Jordan Cooper, 14, who was stabbed to death in Northumberland.

On Mother's Day he posted a message on an online memorial page to Lauren reading: "Help me mummy, it's hot in hell".

Duffy also produced an image of Hayley with crosses on her eyes and red marks on her face. He also wrote explicit messages to Hayley's sister Heather.

The family of stabbing victim Jordan had also seen abusive messages directed at the youngster on an online memorial and a YouTube video defacing an image of the teenager.

Magistrates also gave Duffy an Asbo, banning him from using social networking sites for five years.

Outside court, Lauren's father Mark Drew said: "Lauren didn't deserve this.

"Seeing him in court was really hard. I was so angry.

"Lauren was my only daughter and I worshipped the ground she walked on.

"This person hid behind the computer screen with no feeling."

Mr Drew urged Facebook do do more to prevent the website being misused, adding that it was "a wonderful thing if used right".

Lance Whiteford, mitigating, said Duffy had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome at an early age and one of the characteristics was an inability to judge the reaction of others.

He said Duffy had also struggled with alcohol problems and lived "a miserable existence".

Duffy had no previous convictions but had received one caution for a similar offence.

Paul Warren, chairman of the magistrates' bench, said: "This case serves to illustrate the harm and damage done by the malicious misuse of social networking sites."

Sherry Adhami, of the charity Beatbullying, said: "Today's ruling is a monumental move towards bullying and cyberbullying being taken more seriously and sends a strong message to society that bullying, whether online or offline, is not going to be tolerated.

"It's time that stopping bullying at the source is placed higher on the government's agenda."

M@verick

976 posts

241 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
how very very weird. Why would anyone do that ? - quite apart from the fact that he has not considered the pain he would cause to those grieving for the dead girls, I cant imagine the point, or indeed what sort of gratification he sought to get out of it.

There are some very strange people out there.

R.

Olf

11,978 posts

248 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
Why are they calling him a 'man'?

Hot tar and feathers is the answer to this one.

DieselGriff

5,160 posts

289 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
Whilst not condoning the actions of this man, they are abhorrent, but what offence was he convicted of? The text in the OP doesn't seem to make it obvious but I've had a few drinks.

tr7v8

7,624 posts

258 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
DieselGriff said:
Whilst not condoning the actions of this man, they are abhorrent, but what offence was he convicted of? The text in the OP doesn't seem to make it obvious but I've had a few drinks.
Quite simple "He previously pleaded guilty at Reading Magistrates' Court to sending indecent or offensive communications."


Fittster

20,120 posts

243 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
I thought you could say what you like about dead people?

Does libel now cover dead people?

Olf

11,978 posts

248 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
Fittster said:
I thought you could say what you like about dead people?

Does libel now cover dead people?
When did you start spelling Libel as Indecent Communications? Far more and different letters no?

DieselGriff

5,160 posts

289 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
tr7v8 said:
DieselGriff said:
Whilst not condoning the actions of this man, they are abhorrent, but what offence was he convicted of? The text in the OP doesn't seem to make it obvious but I've had a few drinks.
Quite simple "He previously pleaded guilty at Reading Magistrates' Court to sending indecent or offensive communications."
I saw that but what was he done for this time? The suggestion is "Trolling" is that really an offence? If so then there are quiet a few posters here that need jailing, including me. I was once banned from a local "Road Safety" forum for trolling when all I did was post details of TRL reports, didn't even comment on them.

Fittster

20,120 posts

243 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
Olf said:
Fittster said:
I thought you could say what you like about dead people?

Does libel now cover dead people?
When did you start spelling Libel as Indecent Communications? Far more and different letters no?
Thanks for your legal expertise. PH continues to collect great minds.

For example if I were to say "Olf is a useless who smells of dead badgers" would that not be a case of libel (assuming it's not true). However if you were to meet an untimely end I could quite happily say "Olf had the smallest dick in the world and smells of dead badgers" safe in the knowledge you can't libel the dead.

So when does libel become an Indecent Communications?





Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 13th September 19:59

supersingle

3,205 posts

249 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
The guy is obviously a bit of a saddo, but did they really need to send him down? He's autistic too, so probably isn't fully able to comprehend other people's emotions.

Couldnt his messages have simply been deleted to prevent further offence?

davepoth

29,395 posts

229 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
It doesn't have to be libel to be indecent. I could call someone a fking st tt bh bk wker; it might be true, it might not, but it's certainly indecent. biggrin


TankRizzo

8,028 posts

223 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
Although what the tt did is absolutely abhorrent, I find it slightly uncomfortable that he has been jailed. Fine him and publically shame him by all means, but is what he did really bad enough to warrant being locked up?

I don't know, maybe I'm just feeling too lenient tonight.

MX7

7,902 posts

204 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
I'd say that he's more mentally ill than a criminal. It seems an extraordinary thing to do.

Olf

11,978 posts

248 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
Fittster said:
Olf said:
Fittster said:
I thought you could say what you like about dead people?

Does libel now cover dead people?
When did you start spelling Libel as Indecent Communications? Far more and different letters no?
Thanks for your legal expertise. PH continues to collect great minds.

For example if I were to say "Olf is a useless who smells of dead badgers" would that not be a case of libel (assuming it's not true). However if you were to meet an untimely end I could quite happily say "Olf had the smallest dick in the world and smells of dead badgers" safe in the knowledge you can't libel the dead.

So when does libel become an Indecent Communications?



Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 13th September 19:59
Sad that you can't understand that posting offensive or indecent messages about a 14 year old who died from an epileptic fit isn't libellous but is fking wrong.

dudleybloke

20,553 posts

216 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
a few weeks off the drink will do him good!

Fittster

20,120 posts

243 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
Olf said:
Fittster said:
Olf said:
Fittster said:
I thought you could say what you like about dead people?

Does libel now cover dead people?
When did you start spelling Libel as Indecent Communications? Far more and different letters no?
Thanks for your legal expertise. PH continues to collect great minds.

For example if I were to say "Olf is a useless who smells of dead badgers" would that not be a case of libel (assuming it's not true). However if you were to meet an untimely end I could quite happily say "Olf had the smallest dick in the world and smells of dead badgers" safe in the knowledge you can't libel the dead.

So when does libel become an Indecent Communications?



Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 13th September 19:59
Sad that you can't understand that posting offensive or indecent messages about a 14 year old who died from an epileptic fit isn't libellous but is fking wrong.
You seem to be confusing the law with morality, which are completely different things.

T84

6,941 posts

224 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
He's obviously mentally ill, but what he posted was disgusting.

I really don't know how comfortable I feel with jailing someone who is quite blatantly mentally ill.


Olf

11,978 posts

248 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
Fittster said:
You seem to be confusing the law with morality, which are completely different things.
You seem to be dim. Is it deliberate or not?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/introd...

This ISN'T about libel FFS.

dudleybloke

20,553 posts

216 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
is he mentaly ill or just a sad angry pisshead?

the type who drinks alone and gets angry with cats and such like.

still no excuse for being a nasty prick though.

hopefully drying out in gaol will do him the world of good.

Oakey

27,984 posts

246 months

Tuesday 13th September 2011
quotequote all
Because of course nobody on PH ever posts about the dead (or alive) something that may be 'offensive' or 'indecent' to their families? Travellers, promising young footballers, burglars, washed up celebrities, etc?