The stalking act details

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...alking/enacted

On 25/11/2012 11:50, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...alking/enacted


QUOTE:
(3)The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular
circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—

[a]
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,

(c) publishing any statement or other material—
(i)relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii)purporting to originate from a person,

(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form
of electronic communication,

(e)(f)(g)
ENDQUOTE

(b) Ringing someone, sending them a letter or email, asking someone else to
pass a message on or just talking to them (or any attempt to do any of the
above) could constitute an offence?

(c)(i) Replying to a post on usenet in a way which identifies the previous
poster and re-quotes his material could constitute an offence?

(c)(ii) Parodying a post from Usenet (a time-honoured tradition here and
elsewhere) could constitute an offence?

(d) Hmmm... looks as though Google Groups (Deja News as was) and HM
government have fallen foul of this even before it is enacted.

We were about to embark at Dover, when (JNugent)
came up to me and whispered:

(c) publishing any statement or other material_
(i)relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii)purporting to originate from a person,

Be interesting to see if "Judith" continues to post faking email
addresses that imply it's me.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

On 25/11/2012 13:56, Paul Cummins wrote:

(JNugent):

(c) publishing any statement or other material_
(i) relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii) purporting to originate from a person,

Be interesting to see if "Judith" continues to post faking email
addresses that imply it's me.

Let's hope that nobody does that, eh?

We were about to embark at Dover, when (JNugent)
came up to me and whispered:

Let's hope that nobody does that, eh?

Yes, lets, because getting a Norwich Pharmacal order against Microsoft UK
would be easy.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:01:01 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 25/11/2012 13:56, Paul Cummins wrote:

(JNugent):

(c) publishing any statement or other material_
(i) relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii) purporting to originate from a person,

Be interesting to see if "Judith" continues to post faking email
addresses that imply it's me.

Let's hope that nobody does that, eh?

Oh dear! And there's me pretending to be Bertie Wooster...

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

We were about to embark at Dover, when (JNugent)
came up to me and whispered:

(c) publishing any statement or other material_
(i)relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii)purporting to originate from a person,

Be interesting to see if "Judith" continues to post faking email
addresses that imply it's me.


What do you mean?

--
"Dr" Paul Cummins - Always a ******
Wasting everyone's time since 1981

---- If it's above this line, I didn't write it ----

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:09 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

We were about to embark at Dover, when (JNugent)
came up to me and whispered:

Let's hope that nobody does that, eh?

Yes, lets, because getting a Norwich Pharmacal order against Microsoft UK
would be easy.


Off you go then

--
"Dr" Paul Cummins - Always a ******
Wasting everyone's time since 1981

---- If it's above this line, I didn't write it ----

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2012 11:50, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...alking/enacted


QUOTE:
(3)The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in
particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—

[a]
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,

(c) publishing any statement or other material—
(i)relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii)purporting to originate from a person,

(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any
other form of electronic communication,

(e)(f)(g)
ENDQUOTE

(b) Ringing someone, sending them a letter or email, asking someone
else to pass a message on or just talking to them (or any attempt to
do any of the above) could constitute an offence?

If the message so conveyed could be seen as threatening
by a person already feeling threatened - then yes.

Which part of the phrase "in particular circumstances" are you
having the greatest difficulty with ?

I'd imagine that while what's normally knows as "threatening
behaviour" is already covered by legislation - this particular
legislation is intended to apply in cases where while individual
communications might be seen as benign in themselves, the
possibily of their being endlessly repeated is suggestive of
the sender being so deranged, that the recipeint is deserving
of legal protection via the Criminal Justice System.

And the same would apply in all your other examples.

The law would only apply in cases where there the behaviour
of the sender or poster gave rise to the suspicion that they
were seriously deranged.

Whether you have reason to believe this could ever apply
in your own particular case, is of course a matter
for yourself, and perhaps your legal advisors. Although
unfortunately, I very much doubt that Legal Aid is available.




michael adams

....






(c)(i) Replying to a post on usenet in a way which identifies the
previous poster and re-quotes his material could constitute an
offence?

(c)(ii) Parodying a post from Usenet (a time-honoured tradition here
and elsewhere) could constitute an offence?

(d) Hmmm... looks as though Google Groups (Deja News as was) and HM
government have fallen foul of this even before it is enacted.

On 26/11/2012 00:24, michael adams wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...alking/enacted

QUOTE:
(3)The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in
particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—

[a]
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,

(c) publishing any statement or other material—
(i)relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii)purporting to originate from a person,

(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any
other form of electronic communication,

(e)(f)(g)
ENDQUOTE

(b) Ringing someone, sending them a letter or email, asking someone
else to pass a message on or just talking to them (or any attempt to
do any of the above) could constitute an offence?

If the message so conveyed could be seen as threatening
by a person already feeling threatened - then yes.

Entirely subjective to that person, then, even if no-one else saw it - or
could see it - as "threatening"?

Which part of the phrase "in particular circumstances" are you
having the greatest difficulty with ?

That's easy and I'm surprised you haven't already spotted it. The "particular
circumstances" will never be defined clearly in the statute and will have to
be established in case law. And if these "particular circumstances" are to be
subjective from the claimed POV of the "victim", no-one will know where they
stand, much as now obtains with respect to alleged harassment of various sorts.

In effect, any contact or attempted contact - no matter how reasonable or
necessary - will be susceptible to the Act. Even the work of the Inland
Revenue, VAT inspectors or the police.

I'd imagine that while what's normally knows as "threatening
behaviour" is already covered by legislation - this particular
legislation is intended to apply in cases where while individual
communications might be seen as benign in themselves, the
possibily of their being endlessly repeated is suggestive of
the sender being so deranged, that the recipeint is deserving
of legal protection via the Criminal Justice System.

One would think so. But threatening behaviour is at least clear-cut: threats
have to be issued and have to be specific.

And the same would apply in all your other examples.

It doesn't say so.

The law would only apply in cases where there the behaviour
of the sender or poster gave rise to the suspicion that they
were seriously deranged.

Actually, that is probably a situation where it would not apply. The
"insanity" defence is well-known. Criminal sanctions are reserved for people
fit to plead (though there is apparently no inbuilt requirement for the
"victim" to be fit to complain).

Whether you have reason to believe this could ever apply
in your own particular case, is of course a matter
for yourself, and perhaps your legal advisors. Although
unfortunately, I very much doubt that Legal Aid is available.

I think it unlikely that it would apply to me. But what sane person wants to
see the channels of normal human communication as poisoned as this Act seems
to permit? Let's hope for some quick and robust case-law to define the limits
of the legislation and the scope of communication, particularly in
circumstances where the recipient will not find it welcome. Parking ticket
reminders, solicitors' letters, etc, spring to mind.

(c)(ii) Parodying a post from Usenet (a time-honoured tradition here
and elsewhere) could constitute an offence?

(d) Hmmm... looks as though Google Groups (Deja News as was) and HM
government have fallen foul of this even before it is enacted.