 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 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.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How is that different from the "freedom of speech" in so-called "free
> countries"?
In theory, "freedom of speech" means you can't be prosecuted based on
the content of speech. I.e., you'll get fined for screaming loudly in
the middle of the night and waking up the neighbors, regardless of
whether you're talking about Jesus or Satan.
In practice, of course, cops are human beings, many of them completely
happy to beat the crap out of you even when it isn't legal, because they
know they can get away with it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Which, at the same time, are so vague and generic that they can be used
>> for almost anything.
>
> IANAL, but the laws I know seem very precise and specific, and no way
> can they be applied to things like criticising the government in
> general. Do you know any different?
Internet protocol standards also seem very precise and specific, until
somebody tries to write software implementing them and the vague areas
get noticed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocain freeservecouk> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:45:23 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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.
Well, certainly by the people filing the suit, and sometimes by the court
system, but not always....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Well then I guess it's a problem with the wording of the law, or the
> justice system in Finland, if such a specific law can be "bent" to be
> used for cases which clearly have no incitement.
If things are in Finland as they are in some other nations in Europe,
political correctness has taken root.
> If you had a jury
> system, then maybe they would prevent such stupid applications of the
> law ;-)
A government that can't be depended upon to treat Christians and Muslims
equally under the law can't be trusted to pick an unbiased jury and then
let them actually make the decisions, either.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:41:28 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Warp wrote:
>> How is that different from the "freedom of speech" in so-called "free
>> countries"?
>
> In theory, "freedom of speech" means you can't be prosecuted based on
> the content of speech. I.e., you'll get fined for screaming loudly in
> the middle of the night and waking up the neighbors, regardless of
> whether you're talking about Jesus or Satan.
>
> In practice, of course, cops are human beings, many of them completely
> happy to beat the crap out of you even when it isn't legal, because they
> know they can get away with it.
To clairify, before this goes too far, the European Human Rights Act has
"freedom of expression". Except in the UK in cases of racial or religious
incitement, or if you want to stand outside Parliament holding a placard
when you haven't booked an appointment ;-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 May 2008 12:43:33 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> 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.
>
I think that it is more like stealing electricity from a transmitter
or power transmission line using an induction loop.
>> 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.
>
Oh! Yes :-)
>
>> 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?
>
Should use a PATRIOT missile :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
