I agree with Dave – he just doesn’t get it
So David Cameron thinks Facebook should remove the ghoulish support page for Raoul Moat. I am not sure what he thinks it would achieve. Anyone who uses Facebook knows that there are mad and stupid pages and groups on the site – and also some very good ones too. Charities and campaign groups flourish and find new members and supporters. The strength of the internet in the western world is that it is free from state or social censorship. You can have any idea or opinion that you want and you can find others who agree with you.
After such a high-profile manhunt, with the last hours being played out on every media channel, it was inevitable that people would be talking about the actions of the police, criticising how it was conducted and bringing every conspiracy theory imaginable to the fore. And to anyone who uses social media, it was also inevitable that some idiots would start a fan page to support Raoul Moat. The third inevitability was that some would demand that ‘something should be done’ to stop people being public idiots.
Of course the page is disturbing, with poorly spellled comments agreeing that women who leave their partners deserve to be assaulted and inciting the murder of police officers. But does that mean it should be banned? Where should the line be drawn – if indeed there should be a line at all? Earlier this year, David Cameron said that he remained to be convinced by social networking. “I’m not on Facebook, I don’t tweet. Social media, I don’t really get. Politically I know it’s a great opportunity; personally, I don’t want to be ‘poked’ or whatever it is.” And I agree with Dave, not in the use of social media, which I use avidly, if not particularly skillfully, but with the fact that he just doesn’t get how sites such as Facebook and Twitter worked.
Those who are signing up to the various fan pages for Raoul Moat are, in my opinion, scary people. However much you feel that you have been wronged, violence, harassment or intimidation are never the answer. But those who have signed up to the Facebook pages are simply using the internet in the same way as a loud-mouthed boor in the pub: shouting the odds, getting a few murmurs of approval whilst the vast majority mumble into their drinks and hope the idiot goes away. No amount of calling for the group to be banned will help prevent idiots being idiots. The fact that the group are revelling in their apparent notoriety, preening that the Prime Minister mentioned them from the dispatch box, seems to have passed Cameron by. Surely he should have expected this reaction? Cameron’s demands to Facebook may please the Daily Mail, but to many they make him look further out of touch. Whether Facebook should exercise its own moderation policy and block those inciting violent crime is another matter.
What has become clear is how little regard the Conservatives still have for free speech. It seems that they are happy to support some comments which are unpalatable to the vast majority, but not others. There is also a frightening sense of overreaction to a small number of stupid people, however offensive their remarks. I doubt that one extra crime will be committed as a result of the Facebook group, despite the number of people plumping their egos by saying that they would do the same as Moat if faced with the ending of a relationship or a jail sentence.
There can be no doubt that those who were directly or indirectly hurt by Moat deserve every ounce of our sympathy and support. The ‘tribute’ pages must be incredibly upsetting to them. But let us not frget that Moat was a human being, who appears to have been mentally ill and calling desperately for help. His actions are indefensible, but did society do all it could to stop him turning into a murdering monster. It may be months before we know the full story.
Related posts:
- Forget it Dave, the wedding's off
- Are you drinking what he’s drinking?
- Do criminals have human rights?
Comments
15 July 2010, 12:23 pm
Sara,
You make some very good points but your ending comments are where you lost the argument. Why is it my fault and the rest of society’s that Mr Moat went on to kill? It is his responsibility. He demonstrated time and again that he was in full control and should have sought help properly.
I fail to see why it is the Police’s fault for him killing himself too. He came to an end in a violent way which he could have avoided. Not wanting responsibility for ones actions are not an excuse for ones actions.
As for the idiots on Facebook, how would you view it if there were a couple more copycat incidents? Would you then consider that certain aspects of so called free speech are unacceptable? I do realise that if everyone ignored these people then they would crawl back under their little stones but the press revel in it and it then takes someone responsible to take action to nip it in the bud.
15 July 2010, 12:30 pm
I see no suggestion that we as a society are at fault for Moat’s actions nor for his death. There is a suggestion that more might have been done. There is a difference.
15 July 2010, 12:44 pm
I agree with Jon, except more so. Why is it ALWAYS the response of some to lament that the vilest is somehow STILL a ‘victim’, and posit whether “did society do all it could to stop him turning into a murdering monster”.
I don’t care about ‘society’ here. It’s Moat’s fault that he killed one and tried his best to kill two others. The only thing that was wrong about his ending is that it took FAR too long to wind down. If a known murderer is sitting there with a gun pointed at his OWN head, threatening to ‘do the right thing’, why should it take hours to get the job done ? The proper police response is to invite him to get on with it or put the gun down, not to plead with him to pretty please don’t harm YOURSELF.
I appreciate Cameron asking Facebook to delete the tribute page, and understand why Facebook has thus-far declined(wrongly in my view). However the people who post there — I think they are seriously deranged and as Jon says, “how would you view it if there were a couple more copycat incidents”, brought to us by the more challenged amongst us ?
Moat was a coward and a butcher. The only good thing he seems to have ever done is remove himself from this plane of existence. That some worship him indicates that the gene pool might be getting a little shallow in places. That he even gets any sympathy at all is in itself, pretty galling. He was NOT a victim. He was the victimizer. That’s all there is to say.