Facebook has issued a statement today saying that it will not remove a sympathetic page on its site dedicated to Raoul Moat, which describes him as a “legend”, even though the UK government is reportedly seeking its removal.
The issue came into the spotlight when Chris Heaton-Harris, Conservative MP for Daventry asked David Cameron: “Will the Prime Minister consider having another conference call with Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook, whose site is currently hosting the group 'RIP Raoul Moat',where a whole host of anti-police statements are posted? Can the Prime Minister have a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg about removing this group?
Cameron avoided answering the question of contacting Facebook, but said that Heaton-Harris “makes a very good point.” He added: “As far as I can see, it is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer - full stop, end of story - and I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims, and for the havoc he wreaked in that community; there should be no sympathy for him.”
These views are echoed by thousands of Facebook users, who have created several groups protesting against the sympathetic Facebook groups and asking for them to be removed. Even the pro-Moat groups are littered with angry diatribes by upset Facebook members.
None of this is making Facebook remove the offensive pages, however, primarily citing free speech as reasons for keeping them online. The statement issued today said:
“Raoul Moat has dominated public debate over the last week and it is clear that there are lots of different and opposing opinions, both about Moat himself and about the investigation which surrounds him. These debates are being held in newspapers, online across the Internet, between people in the pub, on the phone and at work.
“Facebook is a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way as they can and do in many other places, and as such we sometimes find people discussing topics others may find distasteful, however that is not a reason in itself to stop a debate from happening. We have 26 million people on Facebook in the UK, each of which has their own opinion, and they are entitled to express their views on Facebook as long as their comments do not violate our terms. We believe that enabling people to have these different opinions and debate about a topic can help bring together lots of different views for a healthy discussion.
“Further, and in contrast to the pub or the phone, Facebook offers tools for people to report material easily, so that we can quickly review and remove from the service anything that is against our terms.”
TechEye asked a Facebook spokesperson about the controversial pages. We asked if the UK government had contacted it and asked it to remove the page, and if the Tories were on the verge of introducing internet censorship over the affair, but the spokesperson refused to comment.
On investigation we discovered that the offending page had been removed. The spokesperson told us that “Facebook did not remove the ‘RIP Raoul Moat you Legend’ Page. Facebook will remove content that violates our terms when reported to us.” We were informed that “any content on Facebook can be removed by the user who created it,” suggesting that the creator of the page was the one who removed it.
We found that a replacement page is already in place entitled “R.I.P Raoul Moat You Legend - Page 2”, with the creator leaving a message saying “looks like the police and cameron got their way.. bye bye tories”. At the time of writing it only has six members. Another group, entitled “R.I.P Raoul Moat!" has nearly 10,000 members, continuing to incite outrage from many Facebook users. From today's statement by Facebook, however, it seems highly unlikely that it will remove these groups.
The least the UK government can do is give Chris Brown a state funeral, similar to the one recieved by HRH Diana, Princess of Wales. This would make amends in a small way, and help to direct public sympathies in a constructive manner.
Samantha pulled the trigger on him and lets ask her why he was in prison in the first place, WAS IT HIM WHO HURT THE KIDS?? She did this all the time and wound him up constantly and as for his other ex, MONEY,MONEY,MONEY,LIAR!!!!!
Samantha was screaming out the window with her mother at him and her new man came at him armed with an iron bar, so what do you all think about that......I dont agree with anything he did to those people but knowing the man, i believe that was the only way he knew due to the lifestyle he had decided to take up and so did she and knew who she was dealing with....SILLY SILLY GIRL, AND NEARLY DIED with your stupid button that you pushed....
She will have to leave the city I would have thought but why should she care now as she will be loaded with the compensation that should be kept for the children, NOT HER OR THAT OTHER EX.......
There is always two sides to every story but he did try to go straight and was trying to change his lifestyle but could'nt do anything as it was crushed everytime by our protective Law and Order specialists PA!!!!!!
He went insane and wanted help but was always hit with how bad he was and the same from her.
THE PICTURE OF HIM DRESSED UP WAS FOR A FANCY DRESS PARTY YOU IGNORANT WOMAN, WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, JORDAN AND ALEX!!!!
I do believe he was violent, I dont think he was innocent in anyway, but I knew him and know he tread a thin line in all aspects of his life, but he did try to be normal and what happened to second chances in life,if your allowed to fullfill them.....
The country needs to take a look at our so called Police Force as the woman who travelled 200 miles to attend a funeral of a man she did'nt even know, which shows a little of how people feel about Englands protectors, although she may just be a nut who wants in on the action.
As for the coments about illiteracy on some of the flowers and cards left for him, its shows more about this countries failings in giving people a chance for education and just because someone is a doorman does'nt mean they can't spell.
They teach text at schools now and allow the kids to talk the same so what do you expect and i dont think real English is ever recognised again.
Raoul was no legend, he was a disturbed man who lost it just like the Taxi driver in Cumbria who killed more innocent people and was able to drive from town to town really killing innocent people, maybe he heard some man saying they were going to take his children from him too!
He was someone to feel sorry for in that he had it in him to be a good man and needed years of help to change his way of thinking, but could have made it.
There should be a line drawn under it now as nothing will bring the dead back but some very IMPORTANT things need to be learnt from this. Raoul normally only was violent with the people that lived his kind of lifestyle who knew the threat he would fullfill if they had a go at him. How many other times had he spent time inside, some say never until this last charge
but we'll never know the truth behind who he took the rap for on this one and there are worse people walking around free with bigger threats to everyday people, he just lost it.
END OF!!!!!!!!