F*ckbook in the spotlight (Part 1)

This post has been a long time coming so I guess I should probably explain the title. The woes do not relate to my own personal life but that recently more and more news stories are cropping up relating to Facebook. Whilst most of us recognise that it is a social networking site of significant relevance to society, could it also be just as harmful?

I like the fun of facebook just as anyone who is a member does, though I am interested in the number of reports and stories with this internet phenomenon at its centre. So here are a list of categories with links to articles you might find interesting to read.

Facebook Bullying
A shocking trend amongst teenagers and adults alike, I'm sure, is to resort to bullying for whatever reason, online. This is just one case of many reported in this country (UK)
Teenage girl is first to be jailed for bullying on Facebook

Crime

Vigilante justice in the form of setting up a facebook group in a bid to launch a hate campaign against an innocent man accused of being a child killer.
David Calvert is still not Jon Venables
The comments really have to be read in the above article.

Are these two instances of inmates with Facebook profiles/ access evidence of a lenient penal system? From their prisons, these inmates are able to terrorise victims on the outside world...using Facebook.
Inmate in Facebook death threat
Violent Criminal boasted of Facebook from prison


Children and Safety fears
I for one do not believe Facebook is suitable for children. Or young people under 16 to be exact. I'm sure that there are other networking sites such as Bebo, Myspace or whatever else they are called which are more suitable if your children have the need to be like everyone else and have an online profile and identity. I'm not sure younger users appreciate just how open their profiles and information are on Facebook and how easily a sexual predator could create a profile for the purposes of appealing to and grooming a young impressionable teen or pre-teen. Children using Facebook in my opinion is another case of kids trying to be grown up before their time...with fatal results.
Facebook threatens to sue Daily Mail
Police criticise Facebook safety after Ashleigh Hall murder


Relationships
From personal experience (though nothing critical) I know first-hand how damaging facebook can be to insecure or controlling partners (or indeed ANYONE) in relationships. Checking the others' relationship status or posts on their wall and the many often incriminating photographs attached to someone's profile can lead to many an argument and has done. I think that it is ridiculous to broadcast your relationships, open to public scrutiny to the world and have seen many a 'friend' in a relationship change their status to 'single' after having it as 'in a relationship' and having to answer a barrage of questions about their supposed relationship break down. Just. Don't. Do. It.
Remember this story?
Marriage end 'Posted on Facebook'
It amused many people to no end, least of all the couple involved...

It is interesting to read about the fact that Facebook could be playing a part in relationship breakdowns and issues and even more shocking is that the article below states that an unmentioned law firm suggested that one in five of petitions they processed for divorce had mentioned facebook.
Facebook fuelling divorce, research claims

Then there are the reports that in the US, more and more formal court documents are being served via facebook which you can read about below. (This is just one report and there are several online)
Facebook- the future of service of process

Employment issues

Finally there is the news that increasingly, employers are checking the facebook profiles of their prospective employees and as the attached article shows, even resulted in one teen losing her job over it.
Teenage office worker sacked for moaning on Facebook about her 'totally boring' job

Is it just me or is Facebook becoming less fun? I still do like the fact that I can get in contact with friends in St. Lucia or abroad. I appreciate that a lot of my friends and colleagues like to use it to show off to friends at how good they can pose in photographs. I have been guilty of having stupid photos on my profile in my time, though recently, I have not been frequenting the site as much as I used to...

The choice to join is yours... I'm seriously considering terminating (for the second time, the first being due to the Spanish Inquisition I was subjected to about my profile) my account after all of these stories.

CBC

xx

I wonder whether I should update this post from time to time (or post part (2) or (3) as appropriate) because I'm sure Facebook won't be out of the news, positive or negative, for a while to come!

More on Venables, F*ckbook and David Calvert

Good morning www. This post is a day late but after logging onto F*ckbook this morning to check my messages, I noticed that one of my 'friends' Mr Lit. who is particularly interested in law and criminal justice had created a group to entice crazy Venables hunters and then changed the name of the group. It was a joke but was shocking that it attracted 54 angry members, trying to take justice into their own hands. Sad. Good on him for doing so...hope he didn't get into trouble!

I write this post in response to a news story of David Calvert, who is being targeted by members of the public who are accusing him of being Venables. A series of Facebook groups had been set up to name him as Venables and launch abuse at him. How stupid can people be? It is widely reported that Venables (whatever his new identity) is in prison, therefore how can Calvert be Venables? It just seems that logic, common sense and all that goes with it have gone out of the window in this case.

However, there is a more serious underlying message to all of this. Should Venables' anonymity be upheld at the risk of innocent people being under threat? Clearly Calvert is worried for his safety and that of his children. So is keeping Venables' identity out of the public domain more important than the safety of a family who has (supposedly) nothing to do with proceedings?

I personally believe that without putting Venables and the fairness of future proceedings at risk, as Calvert says here perhaps a statement that he is not Venables would be a start. Simplistic in my explanation I realise but I really do think that this might be necessary to prevent a full blown 'witchhunt'. However, how do you protect against pure stupidity?

*tumbleweed rolls past*

So today, I feel exhausted for some unknown reason. I haven't been working or doing any exercise. Hmm...

Till next post,

Stay legal

CBC

xx

Sugar Cane, Venables and Dirty Laundry

Good morning readers,

This post will be a bit of a collection of weekend antics and news stories I have come across through my husband to be, Matthew Wright (I SO am not attracted to him in any way...it's because I often refer to his talking points. I just wanted to point this out).

So on Friday night, in a bid to catch up with the girls (and lift my dampened spirits), I headed over to Sugar Cane bar in Clapham Junction for a few cocktails and chat. Tasty drinks, yummy food and fun tropical decor made this a really pleasant night out. I'd love to go again.

On Wrighty this morning, there were several interesting talking points as per usual. The most interesting for me I suppose was that of the child killer Venables, and whether it was naive of officials not to anticipate reoffending. You can read a report on the alleged child pornography accusations made against Venables in the Times Online here.

I'm not sure I can comment on the matter as I don't think that I have been able to formulate an opinion that isn't contradictory as yet. I do think that his childhood offence meant that he had a propensity to commit further offences of a similar type BUT I don't think that the media should be speculating about the offence he may or may not have committed. An interesting point was made in the article that discussions of Venables' alleged crime could jeopardise future legal proceedings and that if his past was revealed, it would be impossible for him to have a fair trial. Some would argue that the horrific crime he committed in the past excludes him from 'fairness' though on the flip side, this could affect public faith in the criminal justice system if proceedings are prejudiced in this way (by revealing his old identity and past convictions).

Sorry if that made no sense, I just have so many thoughts whizzing through my head on this one...

So onto a more light hearted find from the Sunday Times, Camilla Long, a Guest Contributor to the 'newspaper' wrote about why couples fight or argue in public. Especially when on public transport, this can be rather unsettling and slightly irritating for other commuters. It's almost like those people who insist on telling their life stories LOUDLY on their mobile telephones for the entire bus, train or tube (overground) to hear. Is this for attention? Because undoubtedly, people (especially myself) will often pretend not to listen but cave in eventually because their iPod battery chose that moment to die or that they're bored of staring listlessly out of the window, at the floor, or if on a tube, at the crotch of the person standing over you or into the eyes of the perverse looking man (or woman) undressing you with their eyes.

'Coupley' fights can be amusing sometimes. Thankfully I haven't seen many but the most extreme and shocking one I did see was a man pushing his girlfriend up against the window of H&M Oxford Street shouting in her face about money or something equally as trivial (as trivial as money could be in the 'current climate'. Sorry for the flippant remark!), much to the obliviance (is this a word?) of the self-absorbed shoppers there!

You can read and giggle at Camilla's article here.

That's your lot for today. Till next entry, enjoy the sun and frost.

CBC

xx

Edit: I have been reading the law blogs and come across a post about Venables with lots of commentary which anyone interested might find informative so read the Magistrate's Blog!

13 Year Old Rapists? Whatever next?

I know that this is a relatively new story which I originally heard from the newspaper round-up section on the Wright Stuff. I haven't posted much legal content recently and this story really interested me so I felt the need to comment. If you haven't read or heard the story you can find a report here. In summary, a 13 year old boy was convicted of raping a 20 year old female and was sentenced to only 3 years because of restrictions related to his age and the fact that he apologised.

Sorry?! 13?

I do understand that minors under a certain age are subject to different sentencing guidelines that adult offenders but 3 years seems a little inadequate. According to the article, "By law, anyone under 18 years old faces a lesser sentence for rape than an adult, and for those aged 14 or under the term is reduced further..."

I do not have the guidelines to hand but I would hope that this would be proportionate according to the severity of the act because as one of the commentors on the article suggested, Khan is potentially 'one of the rapists of the future' and if he is capable of such a disgusting act at his tender age then the thought of what he would be capable of as an adult is frightening. It also seems ridiculous merely to reduce a sentence fitting a crime committed simply because the offender comes below a certain age bracket. I fail to see how 3 years will be sufficient to make Khan see '...the error of his ways'.

However, the judge in this case, Judge Glenn has removed a restriction on the publication of Khan's name because of the severity of the offences committed. He said,

" In this case I believe there is a legitimate public interest in naming this offender. It may prove to be a deterrent to others."

Oh right. Am I the only one that thinks that the fact that Khan is only 13 is a sad reflection of the changing nature of the values of the youth of this society for the worst? I don't know how simply 'naiming and shaming' will act as a deterrent for others.

Sorry doesn't seem to be the hardest word...

What do YOU think?


CBC

xx



Soundtrack to this post(Song I was listening whilst I was writing...the lyrics coincidentally, are unfortunate in relation to the subject matter): 'Cloud of Stink' by Biffy Clyro




Quoted from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246195/Boy-13-raped-woman-friends-jailed-just-years.html

Baby P 'PETA Posters'

Is this too far?

I was watching The Wright Stuff as per usual this morning and this topic of conversation came up. Animal rights charity, PETA has created a billboard featuring Baby P's killer with the line 'People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there'.

I'm not sure how appropriate this is, particulary since the billboard is to be put up in Haringey, the neighbourhood where Baby P was killed. I can see how the campaign will be effective and has added 'shock value' as it is real rather than being staged. BUT, as one of the callers on the Wright Stuff said, the billboard will only serve to remind the members of the community about the incident and it will almost be like a sort of 'guilt trip' since citizens supposedly should have spotted that there was something wrong.

In my opinion, it's not a bad idea or campaign as in some cases it has been proven that there is a link between animal abuse during childhood and later going on to offend. However, is it right to suggest that children who are cruel towards their pets or other animals will grow up to become murderers?

Read the story here and decide what YOU think

CBC

Leniency of judges

I don't think it will come as a surprise that there are those rulings which you look back on and ask yourself what the judge was thinking. However having 10 sentences increased on appeal for leniency is a little negligent don't you think? I thought there were sentencing guidelines in place to deal with this very thing. Understandably, the guidelines are just that; guidelines. But despite the fact that the differences in circumstances between each matter must be taken into consideration, they are there for a reason.

One judge, Crowther, "... handed a community rehabilitation order to a defendant convicted of gross indecency with a child. This was increased to 18 months in prison."

Rehabilitation order for gross indecency? Where is the deterrent? Or the punishment?

Though reading further, it seems that the JCO are trying to protect the decisions of the judges by saying,

"... sentences could be increased for several reasons and overturning the original decision did not necessarily reflect badly on a judge’s performance."

Fair enough. There IS truth in the statement...

Hmm

CBC

xx

Read the story here

On an aside...is it sod's law that the title of "most lenient judge" goes to a woman?

Double murder in Ipswich

A 15 year old girl and her 41 year old boyfriend (...yes 41) were arrested on suspicion of murder where two dead bodies were found in Ipswich. Very interesting to see what comes of this story and how it develops (if it does) and eventually goes to some form of trial. Early days I suppose.

Read the story here

CBC

xx