Do you agree with the Pitchfork Mafia Mobs

[said]

On social media, a person can personally perceive that another has done wrong, or that a particular event offends them personally. They publish an unverified fact on the internet to which numbers respond, without question, in support.

They could be right or they could be wrong!

It can remain as a verbal discourse or it can lead to physical confrontation. These people having no background knowledge of a person or event act as a mob judge and jury and decide if a particular person who they name is guilty of any offence, or cause an event to be cancelled.

This has very dangerous consequences. Someone may have a personal grudge against another and create such an effect which can be very serious. There are laws to protect individuals - but some people are not confident enough to complain.

[seivad]

On social media, a person can personally perceive that another has done wrong, or that a particular event offends them personally. They publish an unverified fact on the internet to which numbers respond, without question, in support.

They could be right or they could be wrong!

It can remain as a verbal discourse or it can lead to physical confrontation. These people having no background knowledge of a person or event act as a mob judge and jury and decide if a particular person who they name is guilty of any offence, or cause an event to be cancelled.

This has very dangerous consequences. Someone may have a personal grudge against another and create such an effect which can be very serious. There are laws to protect individuals - but some people are not confident enough to complain.

I quite agree

Yeah! He was a real cowboy when it came to motorbikes - he had to get other people to repair them because he knew nothing about them. Saw him at the Virginia Street garage a few times. I heard there was a cannabis farm found there. Why can't the Police find him? He only lives in Banks, has a house there in Charnleys Lane bought it in 2007. He also has a mate in Ormskirk - passed his mate's house a few days ago, although it always looks empty anyway.

Goes by the name of Yeti Edwards, aka Terence Edwards, claims to have a few engineering degrees and that he has worked on oil fields in the Gulf Countries, Africa, Australia, etc., and other bull. Appears that he had all those flash motorbikes which he displayed on the forecourt - repossessed and he is in some considerable debt. Actually he hails from Yorkshire and is well into the Cannabis following, he ran a social club from Cemetery Road called the Budfather, opened the club this year.

Absolutely! It is all in the public domain. As is the fact that the Cemetery Road business's and property is up for sale for over £850,000, with the claim that there are ten businesses associated with the property.
According to Company's house, three active companies are listed for that address. The other companies have closed.
<cite>https://www.primelocation.com › Commercial for sale › Merseyside</cite> <cite>- while according to Zoopla, the premises has a value of £140,000.</cite>
<cite>https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/th...8-5ee/30094599</cite>
<cite>The guy's name and address appear on his Budfather internet site.</cite>
<cite>Other details are available on his other facebook sites, and facts that are well known or have been observed.</cite>

Even when what I have stated appears on the guy's own site? All I have done is to expose dubious claims that may act to mislead the public. - Perhaps you agree with such activity, I most certainly don't!

[Toodles McGinty]

On social media, a person can personally perceive that another has done wrong, or that a particular event offends them personally. They publish an unverified fact on the internet to which numbers respond, without question, in support.

They could be right or they could be wrong!

It can remain as a verbal discourse or it can lead to physical confrontation. These people having no background knowledge of a person or event act as a mob judge and jury and decide if a particular person who they name is guilty of any offence, or cause an event to be cancelled.

This has very dangerous consequences. Someone may have a personal grudge against another and create such an effect which can be very serious. There are laws to protect individuals - but some people are not confident enough to complain.

Apart from Seivad's fine examples, is it any particular incident your talking about? Any physical confrontations?

[Desert Region]

A number of said's speculative posts on a recent thread, re political life, were ploughing forth into dangerous waters.

It's not surprising that some of said's posts have since become more reckless, and have been asserted with an ill-informed, under-informed, delusional confidence in an immunity to potential consequences.

[local]

What a thread, It does seem like the fish brought its own bait.

Are there two SAID's .

People do some strange things.

[steve]

The perfect example of what can go wrong ...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/...ection.society

[said]

I quite agree

Why did I know you would pick on that? It is rather strange that you would bother to read something that offends you - I would ignore it.

There is a world of difference between an innocent party being picked on by a social media mob and someone who attracts attention by publicising false claims for profit! You really need to be able to think outside the Liberal box! Or do you not understand the difference?

Would you think of complaining about a journalist who publishes a criminal's history of crime, claiming that the criminal is being victimised? Would you complain about the Pedophile hunters who expose pedophiles on utube? Would you complain about social media reports revealing the identity of a burglar? Or would you complain about someone on the internet that you did not like? Would you like to be warned about a violent person living in your neighbourhood? Just where would you draw the line? It would be very interesting to know your views on these examples.

[said]

A number of said's speculative posts on a recent thread, re political life, were ploughing forth into dangerous waters.

It's not surprising that some of said's posts have since become more reckless, and have been asserted with an ill-informed, under-informed, delusional confidence in an immunity to potential consequences.

Am I delusional by drawing attention to the person's own websites? That has been written by that person. Or by pointing out the discrepancies in view of the responses given on those web pages? Also other more serious discrepancies that person has given to third parties? That is neither reckless nor delusional.

It would appear that since your own remarks are totally inaccurate - that you have unwittingly become drawn into the focus of this topic, and have proved how easy it is to do so. One person with an obscure view expresses their misunderstanding, and others rush in to support them without really thinking - get the idea? Ha!Ha!

[said]

The perfect example of what can go wrong ...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/...ection.society

Ah good! You have picked up on it. There are social media sites that are helpful to the local Police authorities, while others appear to create a form of hysteria. There does not seem to be any solution on how to deal with this because while social media exists, so do the dangers.

Another case involved a person out for a walk with a small dog off the lead. This person was at some distance from her pet, but saw two large dogs attacking her dog. She rushed up to the owner of the larger animals and began shouting abuse at them. Later, the owner of the small dog put a complaint on social media. Sounds fair enough!
The large number of responses from other dog owners on the same site, strongly supported the woman whose dog had been attacked - until that is - the owner of the two large dogs responded. The truth was that the larger dogs had been playing together with ball, when the smaller dog had run up to them snapping and growling, the larger dogs has responded by barking at the intruder, but they did not touch him. The owner of the smaller dog was at some distance away and had seen the large dogs barking at her pet and had 'assumed' her dog was being attacked. Friends of the owner of the two dogs, also posted that the tow large dogs were really soft and would never attack anything. That closed that thread. But what if the victim had not responded, it could have got well out of hand over such a small incident.

There are a large number of events such as this? Do you have any solutions?

[said]

What a thread, It does seem like the fish brought its own bait.

Are there two SAID's .

People do some strange things.

Read post 8 and 9! You have either misunderstood the intention of the topics as two others have done - or you have shown a classic example of the topic that your comments appear under! Ha!Ha! That really is funny - I bet you don't even see it!

[said]

Apart from Seivad's fine examples, is it any particular incident your talking about? Any physical confrontations?

Unfortunately - Sievad has actually revealed just how misconceptions can lead to Pitchfork mafia mobs. There are three posts under this heading that support Sievad's views. Without realising it, those three posters have become the subject of this topic. But - Sievad has not understood the correct intention of the earlier topic. See my post 8. none of the supporters thought to question it, but simply responded to suggestion. Perhaps I should be thanking Seivad for making this topic more graphic.

As for physical confrontations, Steve has provided one example and I have given an example of something similar - there are many, many more -

[local]

Read post 8 and 9! You have either misunderstood the intention of the topics as two others have done - or you have shown a classic example of the topic that your comments appear under! Ha!Ha! That really is funny - I bet you don't even see it!

Yep you got me bang to rights,

I was mixing you up with someone engaging in a little pitch-forkings.

[Little Londoner]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...iles-here.html

A perfect example of bralnless pitchforking. People really should have to undergo an intelligence test before being allowed to breed.

[Desert Region]

Am I delusional by drawing attention to the person's own websites? That has been written by that person. Or by pointing out the discrepancies in view of the responses given on those web pages? Also other more serious discrepancies that person has given to third parties? That is neither reckless nor delusional.

It would appear that since your own remarks are totally inaccurate - that you have unwittingly become drawn into the focus of this topic, and have proved how easy it is to do so. One person with an obscure view expresses their misunderstanding, and others rush in to support them without really thinking - get the idea? Ha!Ha!

From oblivious to knowledgeable teacher in the course of a few days!

Impressive accelerated learning rate .

[said]

Yep you got me bang to rights,

I was mixing you up with someone engaging in a little pitch-forkings.

Then you do not understand the totally different psychology involved. Unless of course, you think that both this site and the other site are in collusion with the Police Authorities - with the intention of creating your concept of a 'Pitchforking Mob'? The present day has given rise to some strange thinking, but I don't think it has gone quite that far, do you?