Useful guidelines

An apposite article John Stewart Mill and the Twitterati in the Spectator on free speech.

How can a woman who goes yomping around Alpine tracks on her own claim to be short of self-confidence?

Thanks bags interesting article.
I can accept reluctance to police the web and prevent free speech for political and religious views, but does that liberal attitude extend to personal bullying?
What about children and teenagers who have become suicidal as a result if Facebook bullying? Or horrible pages that have been set up after someone has died? Should that not be policed?
Do we believe in free speech absolutely, or is there a line to be drawn and if so where?
Interested to hear people's views.

Ah, that is just physical - posting comments on a forum is much scarier!

Come on greatnan !!
You're not going to convince anyone you're a shrinking violet

Thanks, Bags for the link. One more step along the road to 1984.

jane, my view is that bullying involves a deliberate intention to hurt someone physically or psychologically. Talking in general terms about any topic does not usually involve that deliberate intention, I would have thought. In the latter case, it is talking simply to express, possibly to persuade by reason, but not to force in any way.

So, yes, school bullying should be stopped because it is malice aforethought.

The article covers incitement to hatred and violence, which is something else again.

The article said everything I think about censorship - Mills was prescient, wasn't he, describing exactly the situation where it is against the law to incite people to commit crimes but not to simply declare your
own views, even if they are at odds with the views of others.
I don't think the situation of young people or children being bullied on a social network site is equivalent to adults being told that somebody holds opposing views to their own.
I am sure every right-thinking person is horrified by the man who posted nasty comments about April, and the one who wore the tee shirt, but I would have thought that the disgust of the majority would have been sufficient to convince them of the stupidity of their actions. To make it a crime to say something just because somebody else takes offence at it seems to me to make a nonsense of the law. There are some people who take offence at the slightest thing, even where no offence is intended.

(And I may be very shy in 'real life' - there is something about anonymity that emboldens one!)

bags and greatnan
Personally I would agree with your definition of bullying, ie there had to be an intention to hurt someone.
But employment law in this country certainly does not recognise that definition.
If an employee feels intimidated or bullied, then by definition they have been, even if there had been no intention, and the employer has a duty to investigate, and take any necessary action to prevent it happening in the future.
We may not agree with it, but that is the view the law takes.
I think the Internet and social media have added a new dimension for which it is very hard to legislate and as lily says, fraught with danger.

Fraught indeed, as an abuse of the system by an unscrupulous type could mean that the person being investigated for doing the bullying was actually the person being bullied!! Scary.

Quite, bags.

A description of a bully will include, egotism, bossiness, shallowness, possible lacking for 'genuine' human empathy, believe they are superior whilst at the same time capable of showing puerile tendencies. Shows a distinct liking to control people and events.

The poor child who has only just committed suicide, because of 'trolls' is a classic case. Some will say it is free speech but when free speech crosses over the line, sadly all too often these days, and serious damage is done, those same people easily suffer from amnesia.

It is a point to remember the degree of a persons perception of what is classed as bullying will inevitably vary. Therein lies the problem and why bullying will never be erased because a person who bullies simply has no will, want nor understanding of when they may be crossing the line another person finds unacceptable. They will simply say they are mice, weak, always moaning they are being victomised. They are empowered by others weakness to confront them and when they are confronted they usually become the weak, victomised person they dislike in others.

Bullying will never go away, it is a menace for children and adaults alike. I think it will only get worse given the anonymity Face Book, Twitter etc. affords the bully to flourish.

I am interested in your description of a bully, POGS - is it just your personal opinion, or that of a psychologist?

I'm a psychologist and I thought it was an excellent description.

Has anyone said that the trolling on children's phones that causes such deep distress is not bullying? I don't mean anyone on GN; I mean anyone.

Bags

If your question was aimed at me then I shall answer with NO.

Has anyone said that school bullying should be stopped. I don't mean anyone on G.N. I mean anyone.

I don't know why I asked , the same as I don't know why you asked.

I found this clip that was once posted in our local paper, it was from a nurse who had been bullid at work for over 20 yrs, she is now well retired so it happened a long time ago.I will omit her name just in case!
it was titled "BEWARE OF ADULT BULLIES"
I am writing about the article on bullying.the letter goes on to say
: Bullying seems to be a growing problem in todays society.It seems to be thriving in our schools and in the workplace etc.But you could also have an adult bully living in your neighbourhood.He or she could possess good social skills, be witty, helpful, good talker,charming, plausble, have lots of friends and aquaintances, but the bully can also have a hidden dark side and be cunning, vindictive, self important, selfish, insensitive, childish or have Jekyll and Hyde persona.He or she may have a grudge towards a person or a neighbour and will then conduct a psychological vendetta against the victim who could be someone who is a loner with few friends, has poor social skills, is naive, sensative, prone to feeling guilty and therefore is an easy target for the bully.
The Bully will then proceed to discredit his victim by spreading malicious gossip or any dubious or missleading information. the bully's many friends or aquaintances will be more than happy to provide to help the bully with the vendetta against the victim.The Bully will also incite other people in the neighbourhood to withdraw their friendship from the victim and they shall be happy to comply with the request and this isolates the victim and makes his/her life very difficult.
If you! have a bully living in your neighbourhood, Don't be fooled by his/her charm and other skills, otherwise the "bullies" will always win!

Bikergran.

I obviously could not agree more.

Is bullying a new phenomenon? I remember it happening in my school and neighbourhood over 60 years ago.

Not new of course greatnan but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it is more common and particularly among girls, more vicious.
And possibly bullying via social media is more lasting and more hurtful - rather more difficult to forget insults when they are written there for the world to see in perpetuity, rather than spoken at an opportune moment in the school lavatories and brushed off.

Hi pogs, my question was 'aimed', as you put it, at anyone who cared to think about it and answer. It wasn't a dig, if that's what is worrying you. It was a way of saying that I think everyone agrees that phone trolling between schoolchildren is bullying, because a previous post had singled out that issue. That's all. It was an agreeing post expressed as a question – perhaps not the best way, as I see with hindsight, but it's difficult to know things like that in advance .

Just for everyone's future reference, and to prevent confusion: if I am "aiming" a comment at someone, I will make that clear by using the person's name. Any post without a named 'aim' is not 'aimed' at anyone, but is for general consumption, or to be ignored if no-one is interested. You could say that they are aimed at the ether.

I agree with your last, jane, about horrid texts somehow taking on more importance because they can be referred back to. That's not to say they weren't important (in the sense of being hurtful) in the first place, but having a record of the hurt means it can be dwelt on.

The media are very fond of saying that bad things are increasing, without any evidence that this is the case.

I think I have read somewhere that bullies are often people who feel inferior rather than superior and tormenting others, verbally or physically, gives them a sense of being in control which they otherwise wouldn't have.

I have no evidence to back up whether bullying has increased or not over the past decades, but I do feel that the means available to any bully - and by that I mean the development in social networking - makes it easier, and the cloak of anoniminity easier still, and it is there for all to see, unlike the 'old fashioned' poison pen letter.