IN THE old days people resorted to poison pen letters.

Outpourings of vitriol, generally sent in the post to someone you held a grudge against, they were almost always sent anonymously, so you had no idea who was behind the venom. This made them even more unsettling.

Years ago, I wrote a column criticising aggressive cyclists. It wasn’t too damning - I ride a bike myself and pointed out that I was referring to a minority - yet within days of its publication, I received a some very vicious letters.

A few readers relayed their thoughts in a fair and reasonable way. These letters, complete with the senders’ names and addresses, were published in the paper.

But others, sent without either, were extremely threatening. In one, the sender claimed to know where I worked, where I parked my car, and added that there was a hole in the ground waiting for me and a bucket of concrete ready to seal it. It was awful to read.

In the years since then I have received many anonymous letters. One arrived spouting unsavory thoughts about my appearance and going on to describe what I had worn on a certain day and where I had been seen wearing it.

It’s not a nice thing having people criticise or, worse, threaten you, anonymously. It would be bad enough if you knew who the person was. Not knowing is worse.

You end up getting paranoid, wondering: ‘How well does this person know me? Could it be one of my friends, a colleague or a neighbour?’ Anonymous letters are bad enough, but now on social media, hurling insults at people under a cloak of anonymity is for many a full-time job. Writing under silly pseudonyms, people can be as hostile and hateful as they like.

I can’t imagine what it must be like to be in the public eye, being relentlessly trolled day and night, all year round.

Last year my colleague got a taste of it after received an outpouring of hateful comments on Twitter after a column she wrote about mask-wearing in the pandemic. The torrent of abuse was upsetting for her.

For MPs and celebrities it must be very hard to deal with.

In the wake of the horrific killing of MP Sir David Amess, Home Secretary Priti Patel has said she could remove the right to anonymity on social media. She said that she and many other MPs had suffered “appalling” online attacks and warned: “We can’t carry on like this.”

The Government is drawing up plans to increase the liability of tech giants following a report by the Committee of Standards in Public Life calling for social media companies to take immediate action against online abuse.

I don’t know how it can be tackled but whatever action is taken it will be long overdue. Newspapers require a name and address to publish readers’ letters. Under special circumstances their details can be withheld, but they are still known to the editor. Yet online you don’t have to reveal yourself. It doesn’t make sense.

Sir David Amess had received an ‘upsetting threat’ in the days before he was killed. Whether it was on social media, or whether it was related to his death I don’t know, but it was serious enough for him to report it to the police.

Anonymous abusers are cowardly.

If they had to stand up and reveal their true identities to the world, would they still do it, would they still threaten people? Some might, but I don’t think many would.