Ahh, well the presumption is that the Police would say something like "please don't share these threats with the internet, just leave it with us". I would imagi

Ahh, well the presumption is that the Police would say something like "please don't share these threats with the internet, just leave it with us". I would imagine that is what they would say. The logic being that it just gives the harassers more fuel. I'd hope that the police were being sensitive and helpful in this case. I imagine that the police did not give any recommendations about the event, that they neither suggested she cancel or to go ahead. My comment was asking questions about why someone would choose to publicise active threats against their person, assuming that police would have warned against it. I can imagine some scenarios where someone would choose to go against those recommendations - I imagine things must be very stressful and fraught. Perhaps with Twitter, any threats are already public and so there could be no point not sharing them? Perhaps there is greater value in highlighting the online abuse and having a large amount of online support for ones cause than suffering in silence and trusting ones fate to the professionals? I think our online networks are sorely missing effective abuse filters and controls.