There is something in annoying other people that some people come to enjoy, because society provides a reward for those who manage successfully to annoy others. For an excellent example of this point please notice Jamie Carragher that Sky suspended from work in March 2018.
Is it right that society helps to reward other individuals if they can annoy another person into a reaction? Is it fair that citizens of the society should be forced into tolerating the numerous attempts of others, to annoy them? Human nature is such that every person has some form of limit, so is it right for society to permit individuals to prey on the vulnerability of human nature within citizens, towards the loss of those citizens and the gain of those people that only approach them in order to annoy them?
The outcomes of being annoyed that society comes to hear about are acts that can be described by the law as being ‘criminal’ in their nature. There is some degree of animosity that is summoned by the individuals who manage to annoy others, and there is really no other reason for the encounters and communication towards that annoyed person.
A way to notice what is occurring when individuals are being approached in order to be annoyed, before even mentioning that it is a form of harassment, is that it is a systematic approach towards depriving the victims of these situations of things that right fully belong to them — individuals that successfully annoy another person intend to rely on the law to act against them for a reward.
In the case of Jamie Carragher (which is one of the more recent that the media has highlighted, but which is an excellent example of the situations created) Mr. Carragher is an ordinary and decent member of the society that was minding his own business, who had no intention of committing a crime or doing an offensive act — UNTIL he encountered Person B. Person B created Mr. Carragher’s annoyance and provoked his animosity at that time, which prompted Mr. Carragher’s reaction, and the rest, as we know, is history.
To enquire with Person B for what his intentions were when expressing communication for Mr. Carragher’s attention (at that time), it is unlikely that you could get anything except attempting to annoy Mr. Carragher for increasing his temperature. Person B even had a camera phone on “record” in order to capture the very moment.
A deeper look into the picture that Mr. Carragher and Person B shared also shows that it was a situation where Person B had no ability to interest Mr. Carragher for something constructive — Person B could only create a situation that would be negative in its quality.
Generally, in the situations where a person is being targeted towards their annoyance, it is typically at the hands of others who are unable to interest them. Since these are individuals that are only capable of creating negative situations for their prey, so that their prey only stands to lose something or some things, there needs to be a terminology for describing such people.
Mr. Carragher performed an act that was criminal in its nature, but it was an act that was provoked by another person that had no other interest but to cause Mr. Carragher to have the animosity to react in that way or some number of other ways, as a consequence of the animosity calculated to become present.
If it was illegal for Mr. Carragher to have reacted in the way in which he did, then shouldn’t it be illegal for a person to have the intention of causing Mr. Carragher to react in that way as well? If the law’s aim is to prohibit society from a particular act or particular acts, then why should it be okay for members of the society to induce the performance of those acts through someone else, or especially a person of their choosing?
On an analysis of statistics for crime figures, it can be shown factually, that had Mr. Carragher not encountered Person B, that the illegal act performed by Mr. Carragher would not have been carried out, which means that a discouragement of individuals who have no better thing to offer others except situations for subtraction from them, would lead to a reduction in crime — there would be less crime, and there would be more peace.
Should Mr. Carragher or others like him, need to hide themselves because others wish to annoy them everywhere that they go? No. The law should protect people like Mr. Carragher from individuals like Person B, by making them equally as liable for the criminal act that their input helps to create.
The annoy-someone-famous-or-not-just-someone game is a feature of the culture in the UK, but it is also a feature of cultures around the world. How useful is this feature to the societies that it is featured within? As it stands, it causes people to be rewarded for causing others to commit crimes, and this in turn fuels the creation of crimes.
Beneficiaries of the culture of provocation include undercover police officers that no person is able to make a complaint against for never being able to identify them or prove that they are police-officers, and there is the journalist/news-reporter — perhaps there are more kinds of beneficiary.
The under-cover police officer is assigned to observe a person that is suspected shall commit crime X. If the suspect commits crime X then all is justified and no time has been wasted, but where that suspect does not commit crime X or any crime, time has been wasted, and maybe that suspect isn’t interested in criminal activity at all. What seems to happen is that the under-cover police officers become frustrated with the suspect, and instead of being interested in the performance of crime X, they become interested in the performance of any crime, and what follows is the annoyance of that person at the hands of under-cover police officers. In the situations, the police officers are individuals who are unable to interest their suspects, and they are individuals that come to cause the performance of crimes that would not have been committed except for their input towards the person who commits them — the target of their prey. Later the police officers rely on statistics to show why their employment is justified — it benefits them to cause the performance of criminal activity.
The journalist wants to write a story or be the source of a story that is featured in as many media outlets as possible, because this is how they receive payment. So, by annoying someone famous directly, or by causing the annoyance of some famous person, that person might commit an act that a story can be based on. Again, there is a reward for causing others to commit crimes that if discouraged would reduce crime and benefit society as a whole.
People that are targeted to be annoyed should be seen as being victims, and people that spend their time calculating the annoyance of others should be treated as criminals by the law. The approach of individuals seeking another’s annoyance, is a systematic approach for the subtraction of things that belong to the one being annoyed, for the benefit of the one causing the annoyance — society should not permit individuals to be rewarded for causing the criminal activity carried out by others.
The above is not expressed to justify the actions of Jamie Carragher or any person who has reacted to perform criminal acts following their targeting, but it is expressed to highlight that human nature being what it is, that as humans we can understand human nature, and that what we need is for the law to accept and understand human nature also.