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".
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.)

>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!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message