Peter Nunn is not an “Internet Troll”

UPDATE: Peter Nunn has been jailed for 18 weeks and has two restraining orders in place preventing him from contacting Caroline Criado-Perez and Stella Creazy. I am quite disappointed as I had hoped he would receive a longer jail sentence to reflect the severity of his crime. I also think we should institute immediate temporary restraining orders during the investigation and trial of harassment and stalking, which can be reviewed upon completion of the trial with mandatory extensions following conviction as Nunn continued to create twitter accounts to abuse Criado-Perez and Creazy following his arrest.

Criado-Perez has written a brief statement on Nunn’s sentencing here.


Peter Nunn is not an internet “troll”. He is a violent and abusive man who sent abusive messages and rape threats to multiple women, although his conviction today was only for his campaign against Caroline Criado-Perez and Stella Creazy. Nunn’s account was suspended by Twitter following his abuse of multiple women. He then set up multiple accounts continuing the abuse, many of which were also suspended.

Nunn’s tweets were not “jokes” – and any suggestion that sending rape threats and suggesting women in the public sphere deserve the abuse – is misogyny. Nunn is a misogynist. Those who defend his actions as “free speech” or the fault of his wife for “nagging” (as suggested on twitter today) or because he was “drunk” are perpetuating misogyny. Nunn is the ONLY person responsible for the crimes he committed – and sending threats of rape, physical violence or death to individuals is not protected by free speech (especially as we live in the UK where free speech isn’t a part of British law).

Nunn is just like every other abusive, controlling. misogynistic man. He thought he could say whatever he wanted to women without being held at all accountable for his actions. Just like every other man who commits violence against women and children: from those sharing the images of Jennifer Lawrence to men who commit domestic violence to those who think it’s acceptable to ‘catcall’ women in the streets.

Excusing Nunn or using words like “troll” to define his behaviour minimises the crime and the harm committed by Nunn. Trolls are pathetic little dickheads who think it’s funny to use demeaning language about women – Nunn was deliberately and maliciously causing harm by sending rape and death threats. He isn’t pathetic – he’s a dangerous man who deserves a custodial sentence.

We need to stop referring to men who send rape and death threats as trolls and start recognising them as the abusive dangerous men they are.

6 thoughts on “Peter Nunn is not an “Internet Troll””

  1. I noticed that “Alison Chabloz” is complaining (and tweeting a screenshot) that you didn’t approve her comment as fast as she wanted (or, given the verbal abuse in the comment, at all).

    I note that earlier in the day, perhaps confused or misinformed, Chabloz was complaining that Peter Nunn had “only” RT’d rape and abuse threats other people had tweeted. I pointed out to her then that she was wrong, as any direct information about the case would have told her: Peter Nunn had both RT’d and written abusive tweets.

    1. Apparently, being offline and not checking comments posted until this morning now makes me a bad person.

      I was one of the people who reported Peter Nunn to the police. I have pages and pages of screenshots of Peter Nunn sending abusive and violent messages including threats to rape, messages about killing ‘witches’ and generally abusing numerous women. Criado-Perez and Creazy were not the only ones who received rape threats but I they are the only two who I know (personally) who went to the police. Others chose not to report for a variety of reasons – including fear of personal safety and that of children.

      What Nunn was convicted of was a brief snapshot of the abuse he sent over several weeks – and appears not to have included tweets from sock puppet accounts set up after his first few accounts were banned by Twitter.

      1. (and having just read the comment posted by Alison, I won’t be publishing it as it’s factually incorrect and abusive)

  2. I’m not at all surprised that Alison is leaping to defend poor Peter. I find her a very strange woman who appears to think her own highly suspect behaviour towards Caroline is defensible.
    She did nothing but continually tweet @ Caroline for days last summer, and could not understand why Caroline didn’t want to engage with her. Peter Nunn is an abuser. That’s a fact. He created accounts purely to send abusive threats to women. Like you, I also have pages of screenshots of his tweets. I’m glad he’s gone down. I wish it was longer.

Leave a Reply