Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.

[Lace]

So were the mccanns.

and they still neglected their children.

What sort of answer is that?   back to the McCann bashing again.

It is not the McCann's fault that people want to fight in an internet war based on  their daughter going missing.

[Lace]

An excellent question from a contributor to the Amazon discussion.

'If the dossier was compiled for the reasons apparently stated, and if everything was above board, why doesn't the Sky source simply inform the coroner? '

Any idea ?

Why should they?   if the person/people responsible for the dossier want to remain anonymous why should name/names be given?

[John]

sorry John...check out your source



The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

Why don't you include the entire reference?

Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998 it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person...

www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/comm.htm


Posting general comments on twitter or Facebook about someone comes under defamation Law.  In simplistic terms, posting an abusive letter to someone's house is one thing but nailing it to a tree in the centre of the common is something else.  No wonder the police didn't take any further action.

[Jean-Pierre]

Why don't you include the entire reference?

Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998 it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person...

www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/comm.htm


Posting general comments on twitter or Facebook about someone comes under defamation Law.  In simplistic terms, posting an abusive letter to someone's house is one thing but nailing it to a tree in the centre of the common is something else.  No wonder the police didn't take any further action.

Not necessarily John. 

Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 it is the sending, delivering or transmitting that creates the offence.  There is no requirement for the "target" to receive the comunication. 

[John]

Not necessarily John. 

Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 it is the sending, delivering or transmitting that creates the offence.  There is no requirement for the "target" to receive the communication.

A recipient has to receive it for the act to be complete.  In every case of abusive tweets since prosecuted, the offending tweet was received by the complainant in their name into their own account.  Miss Piggy sending Rupert Bear an abusive tweet doesn't count since the recipient is anonymous.

[Jean-Pierre]

A recipient has to receive it for the act to be complete.  In every case of abusive tweets yet prosecuted, the tweet was received by the complainant in their own account.

I bow to your superior knowledge, John. 

I am sure the CPS will welcome your expertise, and will hasten to correct their guidance in respect of the act:

_____________

Threatening letters or other articles - Section 1 Malicious Communications Act, 1988
 
"The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8.20830, deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

Particularly serious examples may justify a more serious charge, e.g. threats to kill.

The offence is one of sending, delivering or transmitting, so there is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

The terms of section 1 were considered in Connolly v DPP [2007] 2 All ER 1012, and "indecent or grossly offensive" were said to be ordinary English words. The fact that there was a political or educational motive behind the accused sending graphic photographs of aborted foetuses did not help her, and her argument that her behaviour was protected by Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (freedom of religion and speech) did not succeed, because the restrictions on those rights were justified under Articles 9(2) and 10(2).

A person guilty of an offence under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.


 

[John]

So answer this simple question then, to whom did Brenda send the offending tweets?

[Jean-Pierre]

So answer this simple question then, to whom did Brenda send the offending tweets?

I gather most of her tweets were sent to various people under the hashtag #McCann.   

Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and also section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, the recipient of the communication is irrelevant. 

The CPS guidance says:

"If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. "

The acts are quite clear on the fact that a communication does not have to be sent to the "target", or indeed even be received, for an offence to be committed. 

 

[stephen25000]

I gather most of her tweets were sent to various people under the hashtag #McCann.   

Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and also section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, the recipient of the communication is irrelevant. 

The CPS guidance says:

"If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. "

The acts are quite clear on the fact that a communication does not have to be sent to the "target", or indeed even be received, for an offence to be committed.

Now JP, do you accept tweets made by mccann supporters fall under the same auspices as those of Brenda Leyland ?

Or are you 1-directional as well ?

[Jean-Pierre]

Now JP, do you accept tweets made by mccann supporters fall under the same auspices as those of Brenda Leyland ?

Or are you 1-directional as well ?

The act applies to all communications, of course, Stephen.

Just out of interst, which tweets are you referring to in this context?

[DCI]

So answer this simple question then, to whom did Brenda send the offending tweets?

Another simple question, who was she hoping would see them and be offended?

[stephen25000]

The act applies to all communications, of course, Stephen.

Just out of interst, which tweets are you referring to in this context?

Read back on the forum JP.

Some of them have already been linked to on previous discussions of this topic.

However, I have noticed a  'blindness' on certain peoples parts, regarding this.

[Jean-Pierre]

Read back on the forum JP.

Some of them have already been linked to on previous discussions of this topic.

However, I have noticed a  'blindness' on certain peoples parts, regarding this.

Your usual answer to reasonable questions, Stephen.  "read back on the forum".  "look it up for yourself".

Yet you somehow expect others to give you specific answers. 

Says it all, really.   

[stephen25000]

Your usual answer to reasonable questions, Stephen.  "read back on the forum".  "look it up for yourself".

Yet you somehow expect others to give you specific answers. 

Says it all, really. 

and that JP typifies mccann backers such as yourself.

You won't admit, some of your fellow supporters are real shittes.

Why is that ?

You can't hide away from it.

After all it is available to  view, if you make the effort.

Now I await the stock reply.

[faithlilly]

Why should they?   if the person/people responsible for the dossier want to remain anonymous why should name/names be given?

In the interest of the justice that they claim to hold in such high regard ? If they have done nothing wrong surely they have nothing to fear ?