To think justice served on the Mum of Disabled Child in Revenge Attack

[Mitmoo]

Thanks to milkmilk for posting this on a different thread but it has got lost.

The mother of a disabled child who plotted a revenge attack on a poster who launched attacks on a disabled child via the internet found not guilty.

DM but that doesn't matter - it's an important article.

A mother who joined a revenge attack on a man responsible for a vile campaign of internet abuse against her disabled daughter has been spared prison.

Sylvia Hooper, 52, was described as a ?decent and law-abiding? woman who dedicated her life to her seriously ill daughter Kim Arnold. But she snapped after looking on helplessly as a cowardly bully sent her a series of appalling comments via Facebook.

One labelled her a cripple and said the wheelchair user should be left to ?roll down a hill.?

Another message read: ?Your mother should have had an abortion. She only had you because she felt sorry for you.?

Mr Hooper, 19, punched the bully after his mother said ?hit him? and Berwick was then taken back to the family home by car. He was forced to crawl inside and make a ?grovelling apology? to his victim while on all fours. At one point he was hit on the chin with a rolled up newspaper.

All three admitted assault but denied false imprisonment and the judge ruled that not guilty verdicts should be entered.

He said: ?I sentence you on the basis that Mr Berwick sent messages that were wholly disgraceful and shameful but then tried to put the blame on his girlfriend.?

Mrs Hooper was given a conditional discharge. The two men were given community orders which included voluntary work.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028961/Judge-spares-mother-jail-plotted-attack-internet-troll-posted-horrific-comments-disabled-daughter.html#ixzz1Vpq1S3To

Precised down full article on the above link.

Good for the judge, the right decision was made.

worraliberty the man would have just found another victim though, would you have preferred that?

are we forgetting that the victim had cp, so perhaps that was why wh allowed her self to be bullied........ffs

Oh don't be ridiculous

So are you saying Mother shouldn't have clicked 'block' and prevented her daughter being abused by a sicko incase he did it to someone else instead?

The daughter was very much a victim here, but it could quite easily have been prevented.

And as parents, we all need to look at Facebook settings and learn how to protect our kids if they use it.

The "victim" has sought his retaliation through the legal system, I hope he feels as failed by it as his disabled victim's mother was.

worra what should have happened is that the mother should have been able to print off the abuse, given it to the police, and had them put a stop to it.

But

She did and they were powerless to help. That is what is wrong, that is what needs changing.

The worrying thing here is that many of us who have children with disabilities have encountered others who get their kicks from their anonymous abuse of the disabled. So it's not a rare thing.

To be honest I couldn't give a shiny shit about the guy who sent the sick messages and I don't see him as a victim in this.

However, I do wonder if the whole thing panned out as a public slanging match on the girl's FB wall, as these things so often do when people refuse to click 'block'

They get their 'kicks' from a response, Mitmoo, if they find that their target has 'left the building', what's to enjoy?

There does need to be more traceability of the bullies and there does need to be a judicial system robust enough to deal with them but in the meantime, parents have to removed/reduce the bullying opportunities, not engage with the bullies.

did she not have an off button on her computer?

Look how many sensible women on here get all stressed out and continue pointless and bitchy arguments on endless threads, flouncing and weeping.
It may be logical to block and then walk away from an argument, but if you are disabled then reading the abuse from one individual is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a thousand other people thinking the same things about you, everywhere. As I said before, it is corrosive and soul-destroying.
Delete and block, but the words stay with you.
Didn't see how old the daughter was, but please don't equate CP with being helpless, and unable to argue and strop with your mother like a teenager without SN.
We have a lot of parents on here who struggle with their own teenagers and their unwillingness to listen to sage parental wisdom when available.

I don't know how old she was either but as LyingWitch points out, bullies get off on the replies. If the block function was used, it wouldn't have gone past one nasty message.

And actually, if the other privacy controls were used...the bully wouldn't have been able to send the message in the first place without being on the girl's list.

Imo these things really are down to the parents/carers/family to make sure they're in place and being used.

I think tbh that there is right and wrong on both sides of the argument.

The bloke posting the messages was in the wrong, absolutely, without question he was in the wrong.

But the point about blocking him from fb is a valid one.

The difference between syber bullying and rl bullying is that with syber bullying, while it's still not nice, you can actually avoid it. block, delete, don't read, whatever it is you have to do. It does baffle me the amount of people that keep going back for more, so to speak - I've seen it on here, someone turns on a poster, who then cries bullying but keeps coming back to the thread in question to tell everyone how upset she is.

Yes the perpitrator should have been reported and yes the upset of the family was valid.

But perhaps they didn't need to keep going back to read the comments in order to get so worked up that they committed an asalt.

Lying Facebook bullying when used correctly by the parents can actually be used as evidence. I have done this myself.

My son was threatened on Facebook that he'd be kicked in if he returned to
the school, I printed it and gave it to one of the heads, complete with child's name and photo. Most bullies are not that bright. Child denied threatening him and told head he couldn't prove it and went white when he did. .

Child was put on internal exclusion.

It is completely wrong that people who are in more need of social networking due to a disabilty should be scared off from using it allowing those how are sick enough to abuse it to scare them off, reducing their world's to an even smaller place.

The police should have been able to stop him before it came to this.

WannaBe That's about it in a nutshell for me.

After the first message, he should have been blocked, reported and the security of that account tightened.

I agree, worra, but the bigger issues of vulnerable people not being able to access protection and support easily must be addressed if we don't want more incidents.
Sidestep to the riots.
There was going to be trouble in Southall, there were tweets and messages and all sorts flying around. Anyone see the Sikhs interviewed outside their gurdwaras? With cricket bats and useful items of sporting equipment and motorcycle flying squads? Or the Turks who turned back a group of yobs by assertive action?
That's what happens when people feel abandoned and helpless, they either hide and get their homes set on fire, or resist. If we don't want that, then we need to put alternatives in place.

Mitmoo I don't think anyone's saying the girl should be scared off of using FB?

Mitmoo but nobody is saying action shouldn't have been taken against the bully.

But you print the messages and then you block him.

It is that simple - it really is.

With respect Goblin that's a much wider issue and although it holds relevance to this thread, it still doesn't mean the bully shouldn't have been blocked and deleted after the first message.

If he had, there wouldn't have been so much distress caused to the victim and the whole family.

The article says he used several ficticious accounts, so each time they're blocked the abuse starts again. It is described as not being a one off but a sustained attacked.

worra comments made about using the off button on the computer so yes that would be getting bullied off. and you being

Mitmoo... I absolutely understand your position. Your scenario would work perfectly without getting in touch with the bully at all - bully threatens son - you print out evidence, block bully - take evidence to school and child put on exclusion. One incidence is quite enough.

There's no need for anybody to be put off using social networking but there needs to be responsible use of it. If somebody posts something nasty about you, you block them - or your parent blocks them. It means you can't see them anymore and they can't see you so whatever is posted, you can't see it.

I don't agree that the police should be called in for every nasty comment. I think they should be used sparingly, for very serious offences that have escalated beyond what can be managed by the parent/school.

If you block somebody everytime they post a nasty comment, they will go away, there's no impetus for them to stay there getting no response from you other than being blocked.

I'm sorry to say this because I do understand the feelings involved, but I think some parents are loathe to do what's best for their children because they somehow enjoy the drama and the involvement of myriad authority figures. I'm not saying that help shouldn't be sought but I am saying that adults should have the wit to stop situations like this from escalating.

Oh, I agree. In the same way that I walk away from threads on here when they annoy me. Why do you think other people prefer to stay and get hysterical and aggressive?

and I disagree with the statement that it makes their world smaller than it already is. Actually, it makes the world (syber world) more controllable.

In rl you can't always ignore people. You can't flick a switch and obliterate peoples' comments and views from your life. You can online. You can set your facebook to only be accessible to people of your choosing. To the extent you don't even have to be searchable if you don't want to. It's not rocket science - privacy settings functions are there and once in a while fb will prompt you to look at and update them.

So the online world can be a much safer place than the rl one in those settings.

And tbh if someone doesn't have the capasity to know how to change their privacty settings in order to protect themselves from virtual harm, and that someone is vulnerable, then perhaps they shouldn't be online without the supervision/guidance of someone who has their best interests in mind.

The article says he used several ficticious accounts, so each time they're blocked the abuse starts again. It is described as not being a one off but a sustained attacked

ONE BUTTON That's all it takes. A little box to check that says "Only friends can post on my wall/send messages"

It really is that simple.

"The article says he used several ficticious accounts, so each time they're blocked the abuse starts again. It is described as not being a one off but a
sustained attacked." then you set your settings so only people who are on your friend list can message you.

I'm sure this doesn't necessarily apply to this particular family, but I do think some people enjoy being victims. You only have to look at threads here to see that.

They don't go away though. You block, they pop up somewhere else so you block again, and again, and again.... why should they be forced through the stress of that? Why is that acceptable? (voice of experience) Why should they have to do that?

And yes I am sure that the computer does have an off switch. Are you seriously suggesting that people with disabilities and their carers, people who are already socially isolated, should be denied any form of outlet for social networking? Really? That's acceptable?

Oh of course. They're defective aren't they so they should just hide away.

I don't deny the mother could have handled it better and conceded from the offset that making im get on his hands and knees to beg for forgiveness was not an appropriate response. While inwardly sniggering that he paid for his sickness having been on the receiving end of being humiliated. Knowing that's bad but having been on the receiving end and being impotent to stop it, there was a certain equality in terms of bad behaviour there.

I've been on forums where a ban just means the OP comes back with a new name and starts again and it doesn't actually change the behaviour or stop it. I did walk away as I couldn't change it and there are plenty of other forums.