What is Trolling?

[Alfred R Jones]

Sorry Alfie but my mum always warned me not to play with strange men !

Wise advice you do well to heed, which begs the question - why are you playing with all us strange men on this thread instead?  &%+((£

[Eleanor]

What is a Malicious Communication?

[Jean-Pierre]

What is a Malicious Communication?

This is covered under 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.

[Eleanor]

This is covered under 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.

Thanks, JP.

Wasn't what Brenda was doing Malicious Communications?  From what I have read these communications don't actually have to be received by the persons for whom they were intended.

[faithlilly]

Thanks, JP.

Wasn't what Brenda was doing Malicious Communications?  From what I have read these communications don't actually have to be received by the persons for whom they were intended.

Obviously not as Brenda had done nothing criminal.

More previous police resources were tied up though investigating material that warranted absolutely no criminal action.

How many police man hours do you think it took to go through the 80.odd pages of the dossier and do you think that was a useful use of resources ?

[Mr Gray]

Obviously not as Brenda had done nothing criminal.

More previous police resources were tied up though investigating material that warranted absolutely no criminal action.

How many police man hours do you think it took to go through the 80.odd pages of the dossier and do you think that was a useful use of resources ?

are you suggesting the dossier compilers wasted police time

[faithlilly]

are you suggesting the dossier compilers wasted police time

p


That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

[Mr Gray]

p


That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

well you have to be wrong because that's a criminal  offence and no one has been charged

[carlymichelle]

p


That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

it was  done by people taking the law into their own hands too

[Jean-Pierre]

Obviously not as Brenda had done nothing criminal.

More previous police resources were tied up though investigating material that warranted absolutely no criminal action.

How many police man hours do you think it took to go through the 80.odd pages of the dossier and do you think that was a useful use of resources ?

In my opinion it is very unlikely that in practice action would have been taken over BL's tweets as they stand.  However, the sheer scale of her campaign against the McCanns was extremely strange behaviour, and had it continued may have resulted in some action.

If you consider the working:  "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. "

Well, it did seem to be her intention to cause distress and anxiety.

It is puzzling why, given her views, she did not take Brunt up on his offer of an interview to clarify her views about the McCanns.   

PS it is also whistling in the wind to suggest that the compliers of the dossier could be subject to action for "wasting police time".   What law do you imagine they have broken, Faith?

[faithlilly]

well you have to be wrong because that's a criminal  offence and no one has been charged

Pardon.

[carlymichelle]

Pardon.

 &%+((£ davel  speaks in code faithlily its  confusing isnt it

[Mr Gray]

&%+((£ davel  speaks in code faithlily its  confusing isnt it

yes it's called the English language

[faithlilly]

In my opinion it is very unlikely that in practice action would have been taken over BL's tweets as they stand.  However, the sheer scale of her campaign against the McCanns was extremely strange behaviour, and had it continued may have resulted in some action.

If you consider the working:  "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. "

Well, it did seem to be her intention to cause distress and anxiety.

It is puzzling why, given her views, she did not take Brunt up on his offer of an interview to clarify her views about the McCanns.   

PS it is also whistling in the wind to suggest that the compliers of the dossier could be subject to action for "wasting police time".   What law do you imagine they have broken, Faith?

That's not what I said JP. Where did I say anything about action ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Obviously not as Brenda had done nothing criminal.

More previous police resources were tied up though investigating material that warranted absolutely no criminal action.

How many police man hours do you think it took to go through the 80.odd pages of the dossier and do you think that was a useful use of resources ?

If Brenda had correctly identified Amy Tierney on twitter I think her tweets would certainly have constituted malicious communications.  In fact, I think according to the law they were anyway, even though she got the wrong person.  It's a mystery to me why the police considered otherwise - perhaps because there's no point charging a dead person with an offence.