Yes, let’s attack facebook for not taking part in a scheme – evne though they have their own version – that wouldn’t have made any difference in a horrible crime.
Arguably the Home Secretary was at fault for Chapman being free to kill the girl.
Arguably her mother should have kept better control of the girl’s internet access, and where she was spending the night.
But I suppose it’s easier (for both of them) to blame the method by which the girl met her killer. Hypothetical question: If this had happened 20 years ago, would the Home Secretary and the mother be blaming the Royal Mail, or British Telecom? Somehow I doubt it.
The web has let the chance of these things happen, however the girl was basically 1 year away from being old enough to go to University. Facebook I don’t believe is to blame, I would look at the parents but no one in this society it seems likes to take the blame for their mistakes
Which parent should we blame – the single mother who brought her up or the absent father who was er…absent. Mailwatch is starting to sound as disapproving as the vile Allison Pearson.
No offense – but it isn’t possible to monitor the internet usage of any 17 year old and teenagers have a habit of telling porkies when they know their mum wont approve of their plans. Most of them don’t come to any harm. Ashleigh Hall was just a wee bit more naive than most girls her age.
Personally I feel distinctly uncomfortable that a convicted sex offender could so easily reinvent himself in a fake facebook account, and that the police were so unconcerned about the whereabouts of a man who like to rape prostitutes at knifepoint.
Sorry to contradict your point, but the Daily Mail were actually forced to put up an apology to Facebook today, as well as print one tomorrow, for the misleading claims they made about the:
1: Case
2: Website
They also blocked Facebooks attempts to write messages on it’s message board, saying what was false about the story.
They were outright lies, intended to try and scare readers unduly. Social Networking is killing the print media. And they will do anything to try and damage it.
Sorry to contradict your point but the Daily Mail apology did not relate to the Ashleigh Hall case or indeed anything I wrote about in my comment above. (Did you actually read what I wrote?)
My concern is about whether hosting platforms such as Facebook, Google and youtube should have some repsonsibility for what’s on the site they host -whether it is a Google video of an autistic Italian Boy being bullied or a convicted sex offender creating a false identity on Facebook.
Oh yes and I expressed some conern about the role of the police in the Ashleigh Hall case.
How is any of that related to the Mail wrongly identifying Facebook as the social networking site involved in an entirely different story?
Ah, a terrible crime and now we have someone convenient to blame.
Yes, let’s attack facebook for not taking part in a scheme – evne though they have their own version – that wouldn’t have made any difference in a horrible crime.
The Mail have always disliked Facebook.
This is what traditional media is reduced to in its battle to survive in the social media age: cheap pot-shots.
Let traditional media die, I say.
Arguably the Home Secretary was at fault for Chapman being free to kill the girl.
Arguably her mother should have kept better control of the girl’s internet access, and where she was spending the night.
But I suppose it’s easier (for both of them) to blame the method by which the girl met her killer. Hypothetical question: If this had happened 20 years ago, would the Home Secretary and the mother be blaming the Royal Mail, or British Telecom? Somehow I doubt it.
The web has let the chance of these things happen, however the girl was basically 1 year away from being old enough to go to University. Facebook I don’t believe is to blame, I would look at the parents but no one in this society it seems likes to take the blame for their mistakes
Quick! Ban the internet!
Which parent should we blame – the single mother who brought her up or the absent father who was er…absent. Mailwatch is starting to sound as disapproving as the vile Allison Pearson.
No offense – but it isn’t possible to monitor the internet usage of any 17 year old and teenagers have a habit of telling porkies when they know their mum wont approve of their plans. Most of them don’t come to any harm. Ashleigh Hall was just a wee bit more naive than most girls her age.
Personally I feel distinctly uncomfortable that a convicted sex offender could so easily reinvent himself in a fake facebook account, and that the police were so unconcerned about the whereabouts of a man who like to rape prostitutes at knifepoint.
Karlo
Sorry to contradict your point, but the Daily Mail were actually forced to put up an apology to Facebook today, as well as print one tomorrow, for the misleading claims they made about the:
1: Case
2: Website
They also blocked Facebooks attempts to write messages on it’s message board, saying what was false about the story.
They were outright lies, intended to try and scare readers unduly. Social Networking is killing the print media. And they will do anything to try and damage it.
Sorry. It’s typical Mail. Lie, mislead, sensationalise.
Facebook are actually planning to sue the Mail. Latest I’ve read just now
Indeed… the mail don’t seem to understand how facebook works so they write complete rubbish about it. No wonder they’re getting sued.
Seems they haven’t heard of twitter yet. At least they’re beyond the blaming of ‘the internet’ for all of society’s ills.
Jake
Sorry to contradict your point but the Daily Mail apology did not relate to the Ashleigh Hall case or indeed anything I wrote about in my comment above. (Did you actually read what I wrote?)
My concern is about whether hosting platforms such as Facebook, Google and youtube should have some repsonsibility for what’s on the site they host -whether it is a Google video of an autistic Italian Boy being bullied or a convicted sex offender creating a false identity on Facebook.
Oh yes and I expressed some conern about the role of the police in the Ashleigh Hall case.
How is any of that related to the Mail wrongly identifying Facebook as the social networking site involved in an entirely different story?