And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:11:47 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:20:46 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:09:11 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> I thought this was interesting
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/7373639.stm
>>
>> Hmm "prosecuted under the Telecommunications Act, relating to the  
>> sending of an electronic message." Presumably section 43- Improper use  
>> of public
>> telecommunication system.
>
> I remember hearing years ago a case where someone was prosecuted for
> "the misuse of electricity". They were phoning a friend, letting the
> phone ring a few times then hanging up. This was to let the friend
> know that they were just about to set off to work and would pick them
> up on about 10 minutes. It was prosecuted under the "Telegraph act".

Along the lines of writing a cheque that you know will bounce perhaps.

> If my school teacher was to be believed. (The same one who told us
> that Ohms law was once covered by the official secrets act.)

Ah a highly reliable source then.

>> 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.
>
> Big brother!

I bet the server hosting his blog was in the USA too, oo I wonder if they  
can get him under the USA PATRIOT Act too?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message