Online harrassment - landmark case
Discussion
4Q said:
Avoid having your affair with another mans wife being splattered all over the internet by NOT SHAGGING MARRIED WOMEN.
It's a service I provide.
This, dont have any sympathy for a guy who cheats on his wife by nailing another mans, even less so when he tries to make out he is the victim in all this.It's a service I provide.
Intresting that he is claiming that it casued him to leave his job, but he was also being investiagted for suspect expense claims. I hope for his sake that he is a stand up guy, but the details in the article do seem to show he's not
petemurphy said:
where does "stating the truth of what happened" become "harrassment" - interesting one
Protection From Harrassment Act 19971 Prohibition of harassment..
(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and
which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
Ozzie Osmond said:
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
I would consider Mr. Puddick to have been provoked and his response to be appropriate for the early 21st centuryStonedWolf in the OP's link said:
Dear Mr Haynes.
If you want your sexual activity kept private one helpful hint is not to spend your day' screwing the wife of a man who - in quite frankly a best-case scenario - will devote his waking days to naming and shaming you on-line.
Bear in mind the worst-case scenario in an "impassioned husband" case involves a claw hammer and a plea for diminished responsibility.
Signed,
The Internet [quote]
If you want your sexual activity kept private one helpful hint is not to spend your day' screwing the wife of a man who - in quite frankly a best-case scenario - will devote his waking days to naming and shaming you on-line.
Bear in mind the worst-case scenario in an "impassioned husband" case involves a claw hammer and a plea for diminished responsibility.
Signed,
The Internet [quote]
Oakey said:
The Harassment Act was intended to protect women from stalkers, not be used as a weapon in domestic disputes.
bingo!talking about somebody, in their absence, is not harassment. Now extend 'talking' to 'communicating' and we have what is being done on the internet. We have laws to protect people from those who wish to spread dishonest rumours and lies... but if you are just stating fact then there can be no offence...
another intriguing aspect of this case is that sussex police originally told the accuser to get lost, the case was only taken up by the metropolitan police...
there was an interesting comment in the independent piece which i shall repost here:
said:
This legal issue already has a precedent, and the matter has been well established and decided by a District Judge — not merely a panel of Magistrates.In the scantily reported case of R v Fredrics (2009-10), DJ Kreiman, sitting at the Kingston Magistrates Court on the matter of charges of harassment (s.2 of the Protection from Harassment Act, just as in the case of Ian Puddick) via the setting up and publication of a website that contained documentary evidence and satirical musical/video works, ruled that “Harassment laws were not intended to protect individual reputations.” DJ Kreiman also found that the content of the site was in the public interest. The defendant, Dr Howard Fredrics was found, therefore, to have “no case to answer” and the matter was closed.For further information, please see the link:http://www.sirpeterscott.com/i... is curious indeed that this matter was not picked up by the major press organisations, thereby suggesting the possibility that they may have received legal threats from the alleged victim’s employer.
He seems to be making a case that a rich business was able to get special treatment and were able to instruct the police to act on a matter that a "milkman" would get laughed out the station for.
I'm glad he won, personally I think the other guy is lucky he just wrote on twitter, if he broke his legs I'd argue he deserved it.
I'm glad he won, personally I think the other guy is lucky he just wrote on twitter, if he broke his legs I'd argue he deserved it.
Victim said:
He spoke of his "embarrassment and shame" after neighbours received letters containing graphic accounts of the fling, and colleagues and clients were contacted through fake profiles on social networking site LinkedIn.
Thats slightly more than just putting your views online - whether harassment or not - doesn't sit comfortably with me.
He spoke of his "embarrassment and shame" after neighbours received letters containing graphic accounts of the fling, and colleagues and clients were contacted through fake profiles on social networking site LinkedIn.
Thats slightly more than just putting your views online - whether harassment or not - doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Jasandjules said:
Sounds like the police simply went out to help a rich person - after all, they knew libel would fail as it was the truth.
Perhaps it's time to lobby your MP to change the Harassment Act to include an absolute defence of Truth.
Disagree, I can see how it might have been seen as harassment - bearing in mind we havent seen everyting matey put online. If it really is a 'landmark' case then that implies there was some level of unknown.Perhaps it's time to lobby your MP to change the Harassment Act to include an absolute defence of Truth.
With regards to the other guys company using their influence in evil ways we dont really have any confirmation of that or the extent of it other than mateys own website and posts by other people (some of whom no doubt are paranoid).
He makes mention that terrorist Police were used or some other serious crime type Police - not sure that matters much. I was once involved in what many would call a low level Police operation but we had with us armed officers - presumably because they didnt have anyone to shoot that day and therefore had to be utilised for normal duties.
I am not sure COLP can be criticised for following up the harassment claims but they can be criticised for their heavy handedness - if the claims are true and accurate.
I think some of you woudl soon change your tune if your private lfie was bandied about by some nutter on the net - even if it was true!
Edited by Mojooo on Friday 17th June 21:33
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff