Proof that Recruitment Agents are all *****

[Spacecadet]

Twitter troll unmasked: Father of six who is one of Britain's vilest internet trolls exposed after posting sick jokes about Hillsborough disaster | Mail Online

Ambridge, 51, a recruitment consultant and father of six from Braintree, Essex, also made disgusting comments about the murder of James Bulger which deeply upset his mother. But an unrepentant Ambridge claims people who are offended by his comments have only themselves to blame.

[AtW]

Trolls on here would have made him cry ...

[NickFitz]

Daily Fail is up-to-the-minute as usual: http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...n-exposed.html

[BrilloPad]

Trolls on here would have made him cry ...

You aren't that bad Alexei....

[DodgyAgent]

having said that could it be SAS Guru in disguise?

"But later, speaking at the wheel of his battered Toyota vehicle, gap-toothed "Ambridge" said:"

[cojak]

Daily Fail is up-to-the-minute as usual: http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...n-exposed.html

True, but now his name and mugshot have been spread across the mainstream audience.

And there's nothing like the Daily Wail readership for outrage and lynchings of anyone in their sights.

If he wasn't aware of actions and consequences, he is now.

[DodgyAgent]

True, but now his name and mugshot have been spread across the mainstream audience.

And there's nothing like the Daily Wail readership for outrage and lynchings of anyone in their sights.

If he wasn't aware of actions and consequences, he is now.

His saving grace is the fact that he is part of a profession with a high level of moral integrity

[Old Greg]

His saving grace is the fact that he is part of a profession with a high level of moral integrity

To be fair to agents, the man dragged way in handcuffs from his flat above a Birmingham kebab shop is usually an IT contractor.

[hyperD]

Daily Fail is up-to-the-minute as usual: http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...n-exposed.html

I don't think it is.

I think it's another stinking opinion paper, like the Guardian, Mirror, Express and the rest, that's just designed to sell more 20th century obsolete opinion papers.

Here's their earlier puff piece in praising the said masked "crusader" in March 2010 regarding freeing a pub landlord from an incidental injustice of being unable to enforce the smoking ban:

Daily Fail

Then suddenly we have this observation:

this.

The Fail is just another scheiße opinionpaper like all the rest of them, selling a piece of bollocks sensationalism, regardless of their political allegiance.

"Old Holborn" is a provocative idiot and troll, but he does raise questions on the basis of what we define as freedom of speech:

i.e. in this case it's a twitter feed and you can ignore it by not following it. It's not that you are obliged to pay for it under duress or potential imprisonment for other platforms. Like say, enforced by a TV licence.

But yet, it brings forth the vociferousness of those that like to ban certain elements of free speech just because they disagree with certain aspects of content, however unsavoury or politically adjacent.

He's not hosting legally incriminating kiddie filth. He's posting what many of us would consider vile and unnecessary opinions.

Just like Frankie Boyle's memorable "jokes" on Katie Price's son Harvey. Outrageous, extremely offensive, but no criminal activity.

And when you start legislating what opinions ppl are allowed to say then it can only lead to a slippery slope.

And he wasn't the target of the investigation. Ironically, being offensive, shocking or disturbing is permitted within the guidelines issued to the CPS in respect of the Malicious Communications Act.

The recipients sending death threats most certainly is not.

Herein lies the big problem of trying to regulate free content.

And of course the acceptable behaviour befitting of being a recruitment agent.

[Dominic Connor]

All good points, hyperd, let us also look at incentives.

Claiming "offence" is a way of exerting power, by getting things you don't like blocked you can screw with your opponents and is also an expression of power.

Would any career in the media survive producing something like The IT crowd, if the target group were Jews, Moslems, or blonde women ?

But its OK to slag us off.

Why, precisely is it OK so say Americans are stupid but not say the same about Pakistanis or women ?

Some might say "because it is true", but that doesn't get you very far.

Even when dealing with things that are objectively true, like the way white middle class girls are statistically more likely to become professional sportswomen than study CompSci A level (and the number is decreasing) has caused me serious grief trying to get published.

The problem with censorship is who do you trust to censor ?
Frankly the sort of person who wants the job is the last person I want.

What we have increasing now is encouraging people to "be offended" in groups, and of course that empowers those who want to get power and money from those groups.

Wikipedia enjoys huge clout in this game, if you were the sort of weak person who takes offence there is almost no one who could not find something to be "offended" by, even in the articles carefully edited to be neutral.

It won't be blocked by militant offendees because of itself Wikireaders are a group, with clout, if you or I tried to write something that covered the mass rape of kids by Christian priests, the abuse of women in Islam, the firebombing of schools by Israel and the abuse of all types of people by atheist Chinese we'd struggle not to get blocked in any plausible filter.