Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> I wonder if this is the first time it's been applied in such an instance,  
> fascinating... it can't be assault as it's not immediate, but they've  
> classed it as "menacing" and thus used a law put into place to stop  
> malicious calls, text/mobile bullying etc. Now if he'd sent an IM or SMS  
> to the officer in question then hell yeah, likewise if he'd posted  
> something a clear threat such as 'I'll give him something to worry about  
> with his new baby'; I suppose adding in the officer's name wasn't the  
> brightest of moves, but still this smells a bit.

  There's a joke which says "the good thing about standards is that
there are so many to choose from".

  The same thing could be said about law: There are so many to choose
from that something can always be stretched enough to fit any given
situation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message