The Internet can be a nasty place at times, either with jabbering monomaniacs of Comment is Free threatening to collapse in on themselves and create a pit of nihilistic despair which will consume the Earth long before the Large Hadron Collider ever does; to minor local disputes or questionable professional decisions which flash around the world quicker, and generating more anger than reports of Frankenstein’s monster lurching towards the village.
Secure behind our computer screens, we can descend into an accentuated form of road-rage safe in the knowledge that we do not even have to worry about our opponents emerging from their cars and dragging us out of ours. Nasty people always will be nasty, but there is the danger of otherwise pleasant people becoming nastified: and when even Mumset becomes a playground of abuse, a problem should be clear.
One professional victim of such cyber-mob was Andrea Charman. As the headteacher of Lydd Primary School on Romney Marsh in rural Kent, she was responsible for a school-farm intended to acquaint children with the farm life which surrounds them. As available space shrank, and to introduce children to the reality of whence their shop-bought meat comes, in 2009 Charman petitioned pupils and staff about the fate of Marcus the Romney Sheep. A clear vote was given for Marcus to be sent to the same place which they got their shop-bought meat from.
Unfortunately, just as ease of use on the Internet has encouraged nastiness, the free availability of information has inculcated a desire for totalitarian control of a discussion. Writ large, this might be continuing to declare as “illegal” a war which ended anywhere between five and seven years ago, which received majority support of the British public and was made legal by a vote in the House of Commons (saying nothing about my personal support for it, like).
In Andrea Charman’s case, this involved the minority opponents of Marcus’ fate launching Internet campaigns, such as a Facebook group which wished to “Protect our kids from the pain that lydd children went through”, or an online petition which thought Downing Street would support her removal “in order to save any more animals”.
Charman went on to receive personal abuse from as far afield as California – including “i’m gonna spit on her grave (thats gonna be very soon)” and threats to burn down the school. With the maelstrom of hate not abating even after Marcus was slaughtered, she resigned citing a desire for the school to function normally, despite having continued to received the overwhelming support of staff and pupils.
Thus, I am quietly satisfied to see that Charman will return to her position after the Easter holidays, and there are allegations on the above Facebook group that complaints are pending against its conduct.
As I originally was reading about Lydd Primary, a situation at a school in my area had the potential to nastify in the same way. Before the break-up for the Christmas holidays at Castletown Primary in Caithness, a case of “extreme soiling” was discovered in the girls’ toilets for Primaries 1 to 5. Faced with the possibility of one girl being in great discomfort, but unable to identify her, headteacher, Sheila Malcolm and another female member of staff took each girl in those classes aside, and saw that they quickly lowered their underwear.
A letter of explanation was sent to all parents, but when the story was reported, there were immediate calls from individual parents for her defenestration; both in interviews to the local newspaper, and the safety of Internet comments boxes.
Although I have no children or relatives at Castletown Primary, I understand Malcolm is a popular and competent headteacher; as even parents typically calling for her removal conceded.
A Highland Education Authority inquiry should shortly confirm its findings, and my view is that although this may have been crassly handled, it was an extraordinary situation. I have seen no coherent alternative suggestions as to what could have been done. One parent was of the opinion that a simple smell-test could have identified those responsible: although, I am unsure how this could have been effected without causing even greater trauma.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Georges I-IV, Boy George, George Harrison and Henry George
Multicultural working
Street surgeries tonight #dundeewestend
Throwing in the towel
Taking a goat to the library
Steve Trevethan
Geoff Reid
Michael BG
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
15 Comments
Ta’ for that. Since I wrote this piece, another Facebook-campaign has been launched for another public situation in Caithness, and been slightly nastified.
During a search for a missing man off the southern coast (he eventually was found dead), Norman Macleod the volunteer station officer at Wick Coastguard used… shall we say… intemperate language about the telephonist based at Aberdeen. The attending superior initially ticked-off the Macleod, but a member of the public appears to have complained and the regional commander became involved… Macleod was offered a choice, resignation or suspension and disciplinary hearing (which could lead to dismissal).
He chose the former, and six other volunteers (including his son and grandson) resigned in protest. Now, there are only four volunteers covering Dunbeath to Keiss, and no-one trained in cliff-rescue.
Although discipline is still necessarily in any public-facing organization, not least one entrusted with our physical safety, I think the choice offered to Macleod was absurd; and I would have left it as a reprimand. Although charity workers have the same responsibilities as paid employees, they often have lesser rights (such as women in their 80s having little choice in working alongside convicted criminals at the Sue Ryder Charity Cafe in Broughty Ferry).
Volunteer England is holding an inquiry into similar.
The Facebook group has seen sensible discussion but also a wheen of abuse at the commanding officer. The creator has said:
That would be because it’s become like a pub-rant.
PA said it more succinctly: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
Incidentally, that’s not what “illegal war” means. International law holds that any war that is neither fought out of self-defence, nor sanctioned by the UN security council, is a “war of aggression”, and as such a war crime according to the Nuremberg precedent. No amount of popular support or votes in Parliament can change this; World War 2 received both of these, and was still ruled to be an illegal war. That’s pretty much the reason why we have this international law, since a war which was not sanctioned by the government of the aggressor could be tried in that country’s own courts. In the case you are referring to, there is a dispute as to whether it was really sanctioned by the security council (some of the members say it was, some say it was not). The UN has not yet ruled on this dispute. It is politically complicated to make progress on this issue.
The significance of the war possibly being illegal is that if the UN does find it to be such, then Bush and Blair can both be prosecuted for war crimes, along with a selection of their government ministers and military. It is normal for a war to be over when this happens. International law has no power to stop a war or to provide equitable relief between nations, only to prosecute those individuals responsible, and this process typically takes decades to resolve.
I think it’s a shame to see the internet being blamed. Nice people are perfectly capable of turning nasty without the benefit of electronic communication. Particularly the middle classes when our comfort zone is threatened. I say “our” because I count as one, but, having once been the victim of a (non-electronic) whispering campaign, I made a promise to myself to try never to say anything behind someone’s back that I wouldn’t be prepared to say to their face. (I am so longing to meet David Cameron.)
But, back to my point. It’s not the internet, it’s people. I notice that in the BBC piece it’s called “cyber-bullying”, which has become a standard phrase. It’s not cyber-bullying”, it’s bullying, and the people who do it should be ashamed. They should not be allowed to take refuge behind some sort of cyber defence “It only happened because it was on the net; I would have been so much nicer if it had been face to face.” That’s rubbish.
Ha, I hadn’t seen that.
I am not a lawyer, and I doubt you are, but as far as I understand it is precisely that… by passing it into British law, it became incorporated into international convention. The latter is a hotchpotch of recent innovations with relatively little precedent and the UN, for instance, is neither a democratic nor supra-democratic organization. It’s Resolutions do just that: resolve to effect change, but are a little unclear on how to do so.
There are Binding Resolutions, however, which carry much more weight. And it was these which Saddam Hussein was in persistent breach of. I’ve yet to see a coherent argument as to how this law-breaking could have been tackled. Harsh language?
Although the annexation of the Sudenland was ‘legal’, I don’t consider it to have been better than the ‘illegal’ invasion of Poland. The act of invading a country is not the issue; it’s what’s done afterwards: unless one is taking an uber libertarian view which considers the imposition of state power to be an unparalleled crime against liberty, which I don’t.. I, for instance, consider the Anfal Campaign to be qualifiably worse than the March 2003 invasion.
Returning to Nuremberg, the pre-occupation with the prosecutors was with what had been done to people, not territorial borders. Had the Nazis refrained from slaughtering double percentage points of the populations, maybe they could have got away with it. Same goes for Imperial Japan.
That’s been cribbed from Wiki. There is no such thing as a non-aggressive war, and the world has moved on since memories of the Great War and then pursuit of Lebensraum or the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere were fresh on everyone’s minds. The term was inspired by the intention of annexing territory or appropriating resources. The 1990 Invasion of Kuwait was such, as were both Iranian and Iraqi designs on enemy territory during the Iran/Iraq War.
Political control of Iraq has been passed to the Iraqis, and foreign troops remain at their pleasure. If mass opposition developed (to their presence, and not directed mostly at other Iraqis) or the Government withdrew the invitation, then questions of occupation could be raised.
Likewise, if I’d had a pound for every time I’ve heard it said that the Geneva Convention must be applied to Gitmo inmates, I’d have quite a few pounds. The issue of their being denied right of counsel, or falling into an ex jure netherworld is significant and makes it likely that innocent men have been caught up in it. Yet, I live in Scotland, and I am happy to say our legal system doesn’t necessarily consider the Geneva Convention to apply to Talibs.
Rob, the Internet’s a passive partner in this, no more to ‘blame’ than a quadrangle of tarmac where children congregate during free-time at school. It can benefit those who may be not as quick as reading other’s facial expressions and are better at crafting a written sentence than public speaking or social engagement (such as myself); but it also removes the worry of direct interaction, allowing all the effort to be spent on distilling the venom.
Or, it can simply be an excuse to rant. I strongly suspect that some of the diseased manikins running around the Carrolean netherworld of websites like Comment is Free are expressing their inner violence (when living in Edinburgh, I was threatened, on more than one occasion, by users living nearby): or, in the case of Pickled Politics or Liberal Conspiracy, their inner confusion [1].
I once followed a YouTube thread for a recipe which quickly descended into a slanging match. And not a very well spelt one at that. I believe in freedom of speech, but only when it’s spelt correctly.
There’s also the matter of the Internet being awash with websites which can prove whatever the searcher wishes them to. And this makes shrill exchanges about politics or current affairs. Anyone who spends all day discussing these has got to be a little weird. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure frequenters to sites like LibDem Voice are good eggs… just none that I’d like to date.
[1] If I were the self-absorbed type, I would consider being banned by both PP and LC to be a badge of honour. But I’m not, so I won’t.
While there are many complex legal questions surrounding the subject, the point remains that Parliament does not have the authority to declare a war legal in this context, and there exists a legitimate possibility that it could be found illegal. Whether or not that will happen is impossible to predict.
Specifically, I draw your attention to #2 of the Nuremberg principles:
A “war of aggression” is defined by the Nuremberg precedent (the UN efforts to legislate a more complete definition going nowhere, due to the US blocking it). It’s a specific legal thing. Wars which don’t fall under that heading are not somehow “better”, they’re just impossible to prosecute for war crimes.
Now, if you simply don’t believe in the rule of law, and think that people should be entitled to do whatever is popular and/or within their military power to do, that’s another matter.
It’s arrant nonsense to compare the 2003 invasion to that of the Hitlerian and Showa periods in Europe and East Asia. There is such a thing as proportionality, and what the Nazis and Shintoists did when they got there was the deciding factor in formulating the Nuremberg principles.
As she is entitled do under a strict interpretation of UN rules. Bummer is it not?
“War criminal” is a pointedly emotive term, and to apply it to political figures who failed to respect territorial boundaries devalues it to the point of no-return. If the UNGA voted tomorrow that the invasion was illegal and its prosecutors were “war criminals” I would ignore it, because I refuse to place unimpeachable authority on any organization which gives equal weight to New Zealand as it does to North Korea. As I said, the UN is not a democratic structure.
The pickle in pleading “why Iraq?” and not Burma or North Korea or anywhere_else_which_springs_to_mind is that precisely the same argument can apply when asking why the near hysterical calls for Blair and Bush to be indicted compared attention given to the far more egregious abuses in Chechnya or Darfur or North Korea. If one claims to be acting according to a belief in universal human rights, then concern should first be directed to the greater abuses… not one’s own country.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. I’m sorry to say, that’s precisely what can happen.
Ownership of a country does not go to whichever gang-masters are in charge. Although I opposed the invasion, I haven’t spent the last seven years obsessing about a war which I barely made a dent in. The final say here goes to the Iraqis who, opinion poll after opinion poll, consider the deposition of Saddam Hussein to have been for the best despite all that’s happened: I am just an individual who pales into insignificance alongside this.
Perhaps the most disgraceful remarks I ever have heard from Tony Benn (so, understandably, it’s up against some stiff competition) was when he all-but accused an Iraqi Kurd of being a CIA-stooge ‘cos he supported the invasion.
Dear Alec,
I am replying to your posting 8 April regarding Norman Macleod of Wick coastguard . You are misinformed . The member of the public who “complained” did not complain about Norman Macleod swearing. He was complaining about Norman’s Sector managers( Sandy Taylor) behavior towards Norman in public and during the search.
Sandy Taylor has been backed up by the Coastal safety manager Ian Burgess and it is rapidly becoming clear to me that these two men are on a campaign to remove any volunteers from their posts who disagree with them. Coastguard volunteers have no right of appeal and can be sacked on the spot. A similar incident occured at the Stornoway coast guard just over two years ago resulting in the loss of another very highly experienced and dedicated men.
In the last 3 years we have now lost 18 persons from the Coastguard in Northern Scotland on the whim of Taylor and Burgess. I do not think this in in the interest of public safety and it is my opinion that it is Mr.Taylor’s and Mr.Burgess’s behavior that needs to be investigated . The public are very angry and this is reflected in some of the comments on the Facebook group.
I would also like to draw your attention to a comment made by Bill MacFadyen( Regional Director MCA Scotland) during an STV inerview on April 9th.
” Over the peice there have been a number of occasions where Mr.Macleod’s behavior has not been what we would have expected from a volunteer” . Norman has never to my knowledge had a complaint made against him . Infact he has an exemplary record and I find Mr. Macfadyen’s comments are verging on slanderous.
Taylor , Burgess and MacFadyen are part of the big boys club culture within the MCA who seem to think they can treat people as they wish. This needs to be addressed and I think the time is ripe for reform within the MCA if they are not to completely loose public confidence.
Hmmm, Helena, that’s interesting and does make sense, especially in light of the events surrounding the Broughty Ferry crew which I’ve linked to on the Facebook group.
However, I recall when you started the Facebook group, all that was known about the complaint was that it, “in passing”, mentioned Macleod’s use of language; and it was assumed by all that the complainant had taken offense to it. This definitely was the impression given by the John O’Groat Journal.
If the MCA management have chosen to disregard the gist of the complaint being against Taylor, and home in on Macleod, you are quite right that this adds to the general sense of cynicism in the MCA.
Re- Helena 24/4/10. With the up and coming election fast approaching and local LIB DEM MP John Thurso seeking to be re-elected in Mr Macleods “own backyard” (Caithness and Sutherland) I’d suggest that you guys take heed of the electorates opinions and feelings or have you forgotten what the DEM stands for in LIB DEM?.
John, I’d been very surprised if the Lord Thurso were as contemptuous of Norman Macleod [1] as the MCA appears to have been. He, for instance, chaired a public meeting regarding the incident at Castletown Primary. Yet, to be fair, I have a feeling this is a devolved matter, so duty of care goes firstly to our MSPs: either constituency MSP, Jamie Stone (also LibDem), or the list MSPs
[1] Although, even in Caithness, commonality of this surname is by no means suggestive of close-relation, I assume you are (even if I don’t think you either his son or grandson who resigned their positions on the Wick boat in protest).
Alec, Thank you first of all for replying with such grace. I am indeed Mr Macleods eldest son and have never been a Coastguard although I do remember as a child being frightened as my Grandfather, Father and uncles raced to pull on their boots and flagged down passing cars to get to their point of call on nights where no sane person would dare tread. Wick is a close community not unlike many others around our country, it’s easy to forget where the “grassroot” support comes from amongst so much “Newspeak”. Social networking is the medium of the masses in our times, to dismiss the opinions of well over 2000 people such as has been said here is risking political damage on a wide scale.
John, although it was before my time, I understand one of the saddest sights ever in Thurso Bay was when the Longhope boat was towed to Scrabster in 1969. For others reading, there are no full-time firemen north of Dingwall… like so much of the rescue services, it’s volunteered based.
As for my criticisms of Helena’s Facebook group, it was not the concept but that the presence of truculent remarks such as threatening to push MCA bigwigs into the sea. These, if anything, threaten to undermine the fine advocacy being done by Helena and others off-net.
Alec, You fail to understand my point, Helena and Maree are doing a sterling job filtering “abuse” from heartfelt anger over this situation. Everyone who has supported this group comes from all walks of life, they may use colourful language at times and may not use “correct grammar” but they all have a vote. I was drawn here by your very casual comments over something that has enraged a community. A community that are about to put pen to paper in the oncoming elections, a community that has a Lib Dem MP seeking re-election. Your message has been sent, shared, forwarded, commented on, e-mailed and attached by a sizeable amount of this community.
Hi Alec,
If you’re the same Alec who has posted comments about North Korea on the Guardian’s CIF, please contact me at Martin at Alexander dot Org or Editor at AsiaLiteraryReview dot Com
Thanks,
Martin