Online Harassment is More Prevalent, and Taken More Seriously, Than Ever
Torontoist has been acquired by Daily Hive Toronto - Your City. Now. Click here to learn more.




Online Harassment is More Prevalent, and Taken More Seriously, Than Ever

Gregory Alan Elliott, graffiti stenciller and Twitter troll, has been arrested after allegedly engaging in months of Twitter harassment, highlighting an ongoing problem in our online conversations.

If you have spent any time in Toronto, chances are you have seen street art by Gregory Alan Elliott. His ubiquitous stencils, usually simple, self-attributed phrases like “nice people suck when they’re mean,” are all over the city.

Chances are also high that, if you are at all involved in Toronto-centric online discussions, particularly those on Twitter associated with the #TOpoli hashtag, you have had a personal interaction with Gregory Alan Elliott. By all reports, most people’s interactions, both in person or online, were unpleasant. For some, however, Elliott’s behaviour crossed the line from the repugnant to the criminal. On November 21, police announced that Elliott has been charged with criminal harassment and breach of a Peace Bond [PDF].

While the complainant is not identified in the press release, community organizer Stephanie Guthrie has openly identified herself as the individual who contacted the police regarding Elliott’s behaviour.

When we spoke with her earlier today, Guthrie told us that she asked Elliott to cease all communication with her months ago, but that he continued to harass her online, sometimes directly and at other points by co-opting and posting offensive material in hashtags that Guthrie has created to promote community events, such as the #WiTOPoli hashtag in connection with the group Women in Toronto Politics, and the #TBTB hashtag in connection with the Take Back the Block parties to combat sexual assault. (Disclosure: I have also often found myself included in Elliott’s use of the #FascistFeminists hashtag.)

It was both the intensity of the harassment and the ongoing nature of the attacks that finally prompted Guthrie to go to the police. “For many months I deliberated (often publicly, on Twitter) about how to handle his ongoing harassment. Earlier responses included confronting it directly, explicitly asking him to stop, blocking him, and ignoring him. None of these responses seemed to make the problem go away, and in fact I found it got worse over time.”

Guthrie was invited to speak at an event last week about online harassment and trolling, and she told us Elliott once again began spamming the event’s hashtag with attacks against her and her work. After seeing he had sent dozens of tweets, Guthrie says that “all of a sudden it hit me just how hard this person must be fixated on me in order to be reaching around the block function to get to me via an event hashtag. Up until that point I felt frustration, anger, exasperation. In this moment, I felt fear. That was what made me decide to go to the police.”

Detective Jeffrey Bangild is in charge of the investigation; yesterday he appealed on Twitter for anyone who had any more information or who had also been harassed by Elliott to come forward. He received a flood of responses, and has confirmed that he is in the process of conducting a number of followup interviews.

Activity online, especially harassment and trolling, is often extremely difficult for law enforcement officials to deal with. We are still as a society trying to understand and determine how online behaviour translates into real-world consequences; police and the courts are no different.

This case illuminates a real disconnect that many people feel exists between their online personas and behaviour, and the way that they interact offline. Online behaviour is often seen to count less, or be less severe, because it takes place in a virtual space. Harassment that occurs on Twitter or via email is, however, real harassment, and can be genuinely disruptive to other people’s lives. Guthrie says Elliott’s online approaches have had a real impact on her health, well-being, and sense of safety: “Being harassed online has made me feel completely surrounded, as though there is no escape from it.”

Individuals and organizations are beginning to take online harassment more seriously. As high-profile cases of “cyberbullying” continue to make headlines, the real-world consequences of online behaviour are becoming ever more real, and also better recognized. This is true in the case of Amanda Todd, who committed suicide after a period of concentrated, vicious, and misogynist online attacks. As campaigns of online violence become more frequent and relentless, so the response is becoming more serious in turn.

In light of this still-evolving cultural shift especially, Guthrie says she is “filled with gratitude for Toronto Police and especially the officers I’ve been dealing with on this case, who have a strong understanding of social media and Twitter in particular. They appreciate the seriousness of online harassment and have treated me with respect and dignity. It’s a matter of getting the resources in place (training, devices, et cetera) to equip the actors in our justice system with the knowledge and perspective they need to deal with these cases effectively. I can see the Toronto Police Service is taking these steps, and encourage them to continue in this positive direction.”

Gregory Alan Elliott did not respond to our request for comment.


79 Responses

  1. Ho Hum says:

    Is this supposed to be an opinion piece or an objective news story?

    The writer ends with…… “Gregory Alan Elliott did not respond to our request for comment” which leads me to think this was intended as an objective news story and yet how objective can it be when the writer posts on her FB page “today Steph Guthrie is my hero”?

    A REAL journalist would have asked Guthrie if the accused made specific threats against her. Did Guthrie or any of the other “victims” complain to Twitter? Twitter will immediately delete accounts if there is any violation in their terms of service. The fact that the Twitter account of the accused is still up tells me that there was nothing in the tweets that could in any way resemble a threat.

    Twitter exists mainly for lively two-way exchange between acquaintances and total strangers. If you do not like spirited debate get off Twitter. No one is forced to use Twitter. It is not an essential method of communication like a telephone. Twitter is nothing more than a form of online entertainment. The fact that Toronto Police would waste resources investigating and arresting what appears to be a totally innocent family man is a complete disgrace.

    Shame on Steph Guthrie for trying to ruin this mans life! Shame on Toronto Police for being so stupid and gullible to act on her ridiculous complaint!

    I hope that Gregory Elliott gets a good Lawyer who will pursue charges of public mischief against these so-called “victims” who went to police with what seem to be highly embellished complaints wrongfully alleging criminal wrongdoing. I also hope that his Lawyer sue for defamation all the the careless twitterers that I see maligning him with mischaracterization’s of his Twitter activity.

    • OgtheDim says:

      “If you do not like spirited debate get off Twitter.”

      There is a difference between spirited debate, and spamming hashtags with screeds against an individual.

      ” No one is forced to use Twitter. It is not an essential method of communication like a telephone.”

      It is in public relations.

      “Twitter is nothing more than a form of online entertainment.”

      You really do have to get out more.

      • Pope Sketchy says:

        The standard for criminal harassment is that a REASONABLE person has to feel fear.

        Guthrie, the publicity hound, is not being reasonable here.

        • Ho Hum says:

          Exactly! A REAL victim would not be talking to every media outlet that contacts her or tweeting non-stop about her “experience”. If none of the tweets from Elliott contained anything resembling a threat then Guthrie should be charged with public mischief.

          If Toronto Police are going to start investigating and prosecuting everyone who behaves in an obnoxious manner on social media there are not enough officers on the force to act as “twitter police”

          Meanwhile REAL crimes go unsolved such as the brutal murder of the lady in Cabbagetown. The killer remains free and Toronto Police are devoting precious resources to this nonsense?

          • “A REAL victim would not be talking to every media outlet that contacts her or tweeting non-stop about her “experience””

            Why? Don’t many victims speak forthrightly about their experiences? Telling other people about threats and past patterns of behaiour might also count as insurance.

          • Pope Sketchy says:

            The rape shield law doesn’t apply in this case. Her credibility will be a factor. TPS should have asked for a piss test.

          • OgtheDim says:

            “Her credibility will be a factor.”

            You’re a criminal lawyer?

          • Ho Hum says:

            No !

            REAL victims don’t come right out and “speak forthrightly” about their experiences to the media.

            They are instructed to keep their mouths shut until a trial and they are on the stand testifying against the accused. The reason for this is very simple. You do not want the victim to say anything to the media that would jeopardize the prosecution.

            The fact that this woman is blabbing her mouth off to various media outlets – including this “journalist” (who happens to be her friend – according to her FB page) proves to me that she is not a REAL “victim” – In my opinion she is just a publicity hound.

          • Anonymous says:

            “REAL victims don’t come right out and “speak forthrightly” about their experiences to the media.”


          • DK says:

            You do not get to tell victims if they’re “real” or not, or how to react to their harrassers. You just don’t.

          • Pope Sketchy says:

            Yeah, we do, when they are abusing the legal system.

          • Og says:

            Yeah, you get to say it.

            But you also get to be laughed at as obviously wrong.

          • Carlos Filipe Costa says:

            you also do not get to say someone is a victim or not on allegation alone… yet here we are…

          • Pope Sketchy says:

            I think this might set a good precident. Butthurt is not harassment.

          • vampchick21 says:

            you’re a sad, sad, disturbing person if you believe one single word of what you just spewed all over this board.

          • Anonymous says:

            Moaning about “REAL crime” is always done by people who have no real argument. For one thing, online harassment is indeed a real crime, both literally (i.e. it is in the criminal code) and philosophically (i.e. it has victims and is grossly antisocial). For another thing, does Toronto have only one police officer? Or are they only allowed to investigate crimes one at a time? Or are all crimes the same so that TPS doesn’t really need separate homicide and cybercrime units? Take your head out of your ass.

          • Speaking out about your experience is something a “real” victim would never do? Really? Must victims all suffer in silence, then?

          • Ho Hum says:

            A REAL victim would not discuss publicly her experiences while the matter is before the court it is just common sense. You do not want to jeopardize the prosecution. After a trial (and Elliott is acquitted) she can write books about her traumatizing experience at the hands of the serial hashtagger.

          • OgtheDim says:

            “A REAL victim would not discuss publicly her experiences while the matter is before the court….”

            So let me get this straight:

            In order for a victim to be believed, they have to behave in a certain way after charges are laid.

            But only if they are women.

            Are you stuck in some sort of dimensional time warp where the moral expectations of women and men circa 1875 are still the norm?
            Or were you just being lazy with your pronouns and really meant to say “Real victims…..their experiences”?

            BTW, still waiting for you to actually engage in discussion as against throwing out the same tropes again and again.

        • Being cyberstalked is an issue for anyone living a public life on the Internet. Elliott’s tweets seem to have been designed with the intent of disrupting Guthrie’s online activities, at the very least of embarrassing her. The emotional intensity underlying his pursuit is worrisome.

        • NDK says:

          Then why did TPS lay charges?

          • Ho Hum says:

            TPS lay bogus trumped up charges all the time. This is exactly the type of “crime” our coward cops like to fight because they can sit safely behind a computer instead of pounding the pavement looking for REAL criminals!

          • Pope Sketchy says:

            Yes they do. If the complainant lies about feeling fear, police have to take them at their word. This will likely come out in the court case.

        • OgtheDim says:


          The standard is they have to feel an inherent threat.

          There is NO understanding in law of the victim having to reach a personality threshold.

        • Oh yes, because the reasonable thing would’ve been to put up with his harassment and shut up about it. Right?

          Opinions like yours are the reason harassment is an issue that continues unabated.

    • Pope Sketchy says:

      It’s her friend, natch.

      Elliott is an asshole, but Guthrie is even more insidious.

      • Ho Hum says:

        Yeah I just noticed on the writers FB page that she is friends with the “victim” Why was this not disclosed in the article? Does this site not have any journalistic standards?

        She did provide disclosure of this:

        Disclosure: I have also often found myself included in Elliott’s use of the #FascistFeminists hashtag.)

        Does this mean that the writer is also a “victim”?

        • Pope Sketchy says:

          We’re all ‘victims’ to a certain extent. It’s just that this time she has her friends in the press to carry water for her.

          • OgtheDim says:

            Did not see a single media discussion of this until the guy was charged.

            But you believing that of course would not fit into your narrative.

    • KDD says:

      Get a clue – and a grip on reality. First, nobody is going to be retributively sic’ing lawyers on anyone after this plays out, no matter how exciting you find the idea when you see it on TV or the US press. Second, you have burned any credibility you had when you went from attacking the author of this piece to immediately lambasting Guthrie personally, wishing harm upon her, and intoning that she is a malicious person. You don’t get to call “bias” after that insane outburst. If you’re so keen to see mouthy people punished with lawyers, you might want to watch your own. Epic fail.

      • Ho Hum says:

        Stop making things up. Where did I wish the so-called victim “harm”? The rest of your “argument is just illogical. I didn’t “attack” the author – I pointed out that she failed to disclose that she is a friend of the so-called “victim”. A serious journalistic lapse (I am assuming she considers herself a journalist).

        And as for “lambasting Guthrie” and “intoning that she is malicious”, this is a person who had Toronto Police arrest a family man because she found his incessant tweets (especially “use of hash-tags”) annoying.

        If this isn’t malicious I don’t know what is! If Toronto Police were doing their job – instead of arresting Elliott – they should have charged her with public mischief.

        • OgtheDim says:

          “If this isn’t malicious I don’t know what is!”

          You are right.

          You don’t know.

        • Anonymous says:

          What does the fact that Elliott is “a family man” have to do with any of this?

        • Bonnie Dean says:


          “[t]his is a person who had Toronto Police arrest a family man because she found his incessant tweets (especially his use of hash-tags after she blocked him) annoying.”

          Do you have any more (insider) information that allows you to come to these conclusions? Please stop commenting until the case is decided. IF what you say is true, it will come out in due time.

          And what does “family man” mean? What does that have anything to do with all this?

      • Pope Sketchy says:

        What if we know personally that her character is sketchy?

        • Anonymous says:

          “What if …” is smug bullshit, it’s not an affirmative claim about anything. Do you know things privately about her or do you not? If yes, let’s hear them (and also, [citation needed]). If not, get lost.

      • cb says:

        Just one comment here: He did not “attack” the author of this piece, he simply intelligently pointed out the fact that JOURNALISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UNBIASED – and this journalist not only has Stephanie as friends on facebook, but after writing this piece, posted that “Stephanie is her hero.” Simply stated, NO JOURNALISM ETHICS. If you want to write your biased opinion on the event, WRITE A PERSONAL BLOG, not an article on a news website, where you can influence the opinion of others. I’m very disappointed, the Torontoist should have higher standards for journalists.

        • OgtheDim says:

          He told here to get off of twitter.

          For a blogger/journalist, that is pretty much an attack.

          BTW, your expectation of higher standards of journalism wouldn’t be excepted at any of the 4 Toronto papers.

        • Anonymous says:

          This is a blog.

  2. Smith says:

    Nice of the troll community lining up to slag Guthrie here to very obviously skip over the “breach a peace bond” portion of the TPS charges. Go crawl back under your rocks, angry cretins.

    • Pope Sketchy says:

      Do you know if the peace bond is even remotely related to this? I’ve heard it’s related to his public art activities.

      • Ho Hum says:

        Thats interesting. If related to his public art activities (very likely considering his stencil work around town ) this would constitute a trumping up of charges by Toronto Police. This would be proof of malicious prosecution.

  3. Pope Sketchy says:

    BTW, to the legally ignorant:

    A peace bond is simply an undertaking with the Court that you will “keep the peace and be of good behaviour.” It may or may not have anything to do with this case. By having a criminal charge laid, by its very nature that “breaks” a peace bond.

    If Mr. Elliott can prevail at trial (and I think he will) that peace bond violation charge disappears.

    • Eric S. Smith says:

      “A peace bond is simply an undertaking with the Court that you will ‘keep the peace and be of good behaviour.’”

      Simply? Well, they don’t just hand them out for nothing, and they can come with a requirement to leave a specific person alone. Peace bonds are issued under §810 of the Criminal Code, so to get one you have to go through the cops, crown, and a judge or JP. The judge issues one if someone “fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury” and the judge is “satisfied by the evidence adduced that the person on whose behalf the information was laid has reasonable grounds for his or her fears.”
      A booklet from the Northwest Community Legal Clinic (some kind of Word document, alas) lays out a helpful list of things that would support an application for a peace bond:

      “For example, the following types of events should be noted: driving by your house several times an hour; sitting in a car watching you or your home; calling you several times an hour/day; hanging up every time you answer the phone.”

      In some cases, the police or crown will file for one of these as part of a deal to avoid charges.

      See also “Peace Bonds and Restraining Orders” from the Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick, and “Recognizance Under s. 810 (also known as a Peace Bond)” (PDF) from the Law Courts Education Society of B.C.

  4. OgtheDim says:

    All I see on here is two people blaming the victim with really poor logic.

    Sounds a lot like twitter actually.

  5. Anonymous says:

    To Ho Hum and some others: anyone familiar with the last several months on the #topoli and #witopoli hashtags would know how offensive, nasty and personal GAE’s almost non-stop attacks have been on Steph Guthrie and a number of other tweeters who can be identified as women. It goes way beyond ‘obnoxious’ and ’embarrassing’ and ‘spirited debate’. His posts were personal, threatening, digusting, and would have made anyone – even a man!! – frightened for their personal safety. But then GAE does not post nasty things to men and to tweeters whose gender isn’t immediately obvious from their handles. Interesting that some posters have immediately assumed that she is making a mountain out of a molehill – would I be right in identifying you as men? I think she’s showing a fait bit of courage by going public on a difficult issue and calling out this man for what he is – a stalker and a very nasty one at that.

  6. CB says:

    It’s so interesting how NONE of the media outlets have bothered to mentioned that the alleged harassment and twitter exchanges were all POLITICAL in nature. Every article I’ve read so far says “the accuser starting harassing the complaint after she decided not to accept his help with a logo design”, which suggests he could be harassing the complaint and other women in very creepy ways when in reality, the accuser and the complaint had VERY different opinions about feminism and politics in Toronto, and the arguments on Twitter were always about that! None of the media articles so far have bothered to mention that the accuser was ALSO harassed by a mob of feminists who disagreed with his political views. If you read this short blog post by Patrick Ross, you’ll have a much better idea of the degree to which Gregory was ALSO harassed by other women on Twitter – just GOOGLE “greg elliott thats one bad hombre”) and take a look at this exchange:

    >>> @TheLesbianMafia There’s no way one of @greg_a_elliott ‘s sons hasn’t raped a girl. He breeds the type that just wont take no for an answer.<<>> Leslie Biean @eurylino @greg_a_elliott Women are anonymous online because we don’t want your sons coming to rape us. @TheLesbianMafia <<>>> gregory alan elliott @greg_a_elliott @TheLesbianMafia Hey, it is not funny. Neither is decapitating people. There is something wrong with you.<<<<

    In other words, the media has been completely biased when reporting this event, which has led to the irreparable damage of this man's reputation. He might have been argumentative, annoying, offensive, even rude – but that is NOT criminal. If these women can charge him with criminal harassment, then based on the fact that they created fake accounts with his photo to make fun of him (@greg_a_elliot) and hastags such as #GAEhole to provoke him AND some repeatedly accused his four sons of being RAPISTS, then he can definitely charge certain women for criminal harassment as well, and I surely hope he does!

    • Anonymous says:

      This strikes me as the same “true victim” nonsense in different form. The idea that “true victims” just meekly accept the abuse, and that fighting back somehow mitigates the harassment, is illogical and sickening.

      • cb says:

        Care to elaborate more?

      • Anonymous says:

        Well, there’s fighting back and then there’s doing-the-same-thing-but-it’s-OK-because-he-started-it. Which the above-referenced example seems to fall under. But in this case, this person expanded the fight to include the guy’s (real, I assume) sons, and called them rapists, which is defamatory.

        • Anonymous says:

          I agree. But the original poster seems to be justifying Greg Elliott by pointing to the more extreme responses from Guthrie’s allies. It’s like if I hit you first, and you hit me back: maybe you shouldn’t have hit me back, but it’s absurd for me to defend myself by pointing to what you did.

          Generally, Elliott’s defenders seem to be arguing that “real victims” should meekly and silently suffer, or else they become participants and therefore fair game for whatever a harasser wants to throw at them. I think that’s ridiculous.

          • Anonymous says:

            Oh, I understand, but it’s hard to argue an action can only create victims when he does it, and not when it’s done to him and his sons. Either it’s wrong and shameful, or it isn’t.

            I also have to question whether it’s fighting back, or just going tit-for-tat, when it’s done through anonymous accounts. If he can’t tell who it’s really coming from, how will he learn to back off?

          • Eric S. Smith says:

            “If he can’t tell who it’s really coming from, how will he learn to back off?”

            Yeah, come on, busy harassers need tips about which of their victims are really feeling it, you guys!

      • cb says:

        The main point here is that what he was doing can be considered criminal harassment, than what was done to him MUST be also considered criminal harassment. These women created a fake account with his name to make fun of him and talked about him indirectly using the hasthtag #GAEhole – Didn’t they realize that obviously that was not going to help the situation? If the guy likes to endlessly argue his opinions and provoke others who disagree with him, it’s pretty freaking clear that you won’t get him to stop by provoking him!!!!

      • Raven001 says:

        Twitter does have a block feature does it not?
        I would suggest putting on the big girl panties and acting as an adult rather than wasting tax-payers money in this childish manner over a childish squabble online.

    • Ho Hum says:

      This is a great point! These “dust-ups” – as one of the “victims” described them were all about POLITICS – probably the number one topic that people bicker about on Twitter.

      The fact that Toronto Police would actually get involved in an ongoing argument over politics occurring out in cyber-space and actually arrest someone boggles the mind!

      • Anonymous says:

        Ho Hum: it wasn’t “an ongoing argument over politics”. It was a series of personal attacks that were insulting and threatening, ongoing, and happening almost constantly. Sort of like the difference between a toothbrush and a baseball bat, if you’re having trouble following along.

    • Anonymous says:

      While I don’t agree with the silly comments made by @TheLesbianMafia, they are similar in kind to what GAE was saying. So, you know, why the heck did he start it? And to call it only political is extremely disingenuous. It may have started in a political forum/discussion group, but it became very personal very quickly.

      • cb says:

        You call those SILLY? Repeatedly referring to someone son’s as rapists is SILLY? Show me ONE post where Greg referred to anyone’s family member in that manner or worse????

        • Anonymous says:

          Clarification: the comments are disgusting, I agree. Just like GAE’s comments were. What I found silly was the fact that they chose to respond that way.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Am I the only one who had never heard of this guy before this case?

  8. Ho Hum says:

    As noted by an astute observer below:

    “The standard for criminal harassment is that a REASONABLE person has to feel fear”

    How can they prove that her fear’s were reasonable when in an earlier unrelated twitter dust-up in which the “victim” had actually received direct death threats over twitter – she had this to say:

    ““I don’t think any of these people are going to come to my house and kill me,” she said. “The ability to be anonymous on Twitter facilitates really abusive comments.”

    www . thestar . com/news/gta/article/1224659–gamer-campaign-against-anita-sarkeesian-catches-toronto-feminist-in-crossfire

    She had no concern for her life back then after receiving death threats and yet suddenly she is in fear because Elliott would not stop making repeated use of a hash-tag?

    This is laughable! She has no credibility. So Gregory Alan Elliott is a serial hash-tagger to be feared?

    Of course the Toronto Police are looking very bad in all of this. The investigator can’t be all that bright to be pursing something like this.

    • Eric S. Smith says:

      “She had no concern for her life back then after receiving death threats
      and yet suddenly she is in fear because Elliott would not stop making
      repeated use of a hash-tag?”

      It’s almost as though there were some kind of context here that you were minimizing!

      • Anonymous says:

        I wonder how you feel this compares to a daily activity on Twitter. Ever try to diss Justin Bieber, Twilight fans or Lady Gaga?

        How about the L.A. Lakers?

        • Eric S. Smith says:

          I don’t see what the L.A. Lakers have to do with someone perceiving a plausible threat of escalation in a specific case of doggedly persistent unwelcome attention.

          • Anonymous says:

            Sorry, I should re-phrase. These types of things (taking over hashtags by fandoms) and threatening people (much worse threats) happen almost by design on Twitter. I guess I’m just wondering what people feel the difference is?

            The L.A. Lakers were brought up, just because I happened upon that article yesterday and thought the parallels were profoundly similar. The examples I brought up are relevant in my initial point of Twitter’s daily activities.

          • Eric S. Smith says:

            Elliott, as the accusation goes, was on the wrong side of the difference between drive-by heckling and going all Mabus. One of the important things that does is change the implications of the content of the messages, making threats more menacing because they seem to be driven by an ongoing agenda and not just thoughtless offensiveness. If I’m standing on a street corner with a sign that says “JUSTICE IS COMING” that’s one thing; if I nail it to your door, it’s another.

          • Anonymous says:

            Thanks for the explanation. I hadn’t really thought about the ongoing agenda vs thoughtless offensiveness prior to this, but that makes perfect sense.

  9. Anonymous says:

    As of this morning (November 28), this is the sort of garbage some other “man” and his two pals have been posting on Twitter about the GAE affair. You call this ‘spirited debate’? This a guy from Alberta who knows nothing about the case, just thinks he’s entitled to trash women as a group and individually.

  10. Anonymous says:

    As of this morning (November 28), this is the sort of garbage some other
    “man” and his two pals have been posting on Twitter about the GAE
    affair. You call this ‘spirited debate’? This a guy from Alberta who
    knows nothing about the case, just thinks he’s entitled to trash women
    as a group and individually. Four typical such posts from a series:

    LookBehindYou @EtownHudj
    @[email protected] Bunch of cunts afraid of dick. #topoli

    LookBehindYou @EtownHudj
    [To an individual woman] What a fucking stupid, bullying, bulldyke cunt you are, A fucking pathetic piece of garbage that is taking up space. Worthless

    LookBehindYou @EtownHudj
    @[email protected] So I see pigs still arresting on bullshit complaints. I can’t see that as the reason. How?

    LookBehindYou @EtownHudj
    @[email protected]! Really? Fucking bulldykes. #topoli

  11. IntelligentWoman says:

    cb, I know Greg appreciates your clarity of thought.

  12. GJones says:

    I believe he is up on new charges…Assault and criminal harassment. Yes a female

  13. a patriot of sorts says:

    i would also like to point out that if some one specifically seeks out the detective working the case of a related charge – should be thrown out as it is a blatant conflict of interest.

    if there was any shred of validity to the second accusers case – it would not matter which detective/officer made the charges. only proven information, not here-say can be brought to press charges. this case is bigger than we all think, our chartered rights and freedoms are being eroded as we speak – (pardon the pun) after all another thing that makes this country great….. is our right to speak freely – do not set a precedent that enable that to be taken from us. our language is our greatest asset as a country and as a people.

  14. MatrixTransform says:

    Well. 3 years and not guilty.
    Are you listening Feminism ??

  15. kv5858 says:

    justice was finally served today. You can stand for something, but you can’t misunderstand for something!

  16. Rick Derringer says:

    the greatest thing about this whole story is that Guthries web page is down, her business is finished and the world see’s her for the whiny bitch that she is