Forum Harassment

[timsta]

Hiya, a bit of help if you would please.

A known stirrer (lets call her 'A') on another forum I frequent has claimed that she has been harassed by another member, 'cor she should spend some time here if she thinks a few jabs are harassment!

Anyway, basically the other user ('B') has had a go at 'A' a few times for her treatment of other members. So 'A' claims she has had BIB around. She claims that the BIB could get 'B' under the Abuse of Telecommunications Act.

Any views? I would have thought they would have gone for an harassment act?

Ta!
Tim

[hanse cronje]

isn't that just symptomatic of the modern, blairite, wet nurse, lily livered, cotton wool, blame someone else, its not fair, I’m can express my view even if it offends but you can't, I’m important, I’m over fifty therefore I’ve arrived, if i don't like your opinion or your answer I’ll just insult you, breath , society that we live in today??
just my opinion as a hardworking business man who has to deal with such issues/people daily

greenhouses, glass and stones come to mind

[rich 36]

wish I got invited to these slagging sessions,

even the Land rover lot cant' muster an argument these days





what was her name again?

[timsta]

lol, funnily enough, person 'A' had actually been banned from the forum I run for threating physical violence, but when someone has a general go at her it's a problem. stupid cow! (glad she doesn't read PH, )

[Mattyboy101]

Sounds like they should go for 'wasting police time to me'

Some people really need to get a (real) life!!

[SS2.]

This seems relevant. Depends whether B's having a go at A could be deemed of menacing character..On an open forum ? Doubtful.. Sounds like she needs to chill..

Communications Act 2003 said:

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he- (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent. (2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he- (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, (b) causes such a message to be sent; or (c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network. (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both. 4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

Full Act here: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm

[purpleheadedcerb]

So, everytime the govt publish something on a website that they know to be false then they are guilty of this offence? Interesting.

[dirkgently]

rich 36 said:

wish I got invited to these slagging sessions,

I had to read that twice! (Must see an optician)

[justinp1]

I would inform 'stirrer A' that of course no one is forcing her to participate in the forum, and she can stop at any time.

As long as A and B are not breaking the forum rules, then perhaps A could be reminded that if she doesnt like the taste of medicine she shouldnt be dispensing it!

It reminds me of a certain poster on PH who used his tenuous link to the police to allegedly use police headed notepaper to 'warn off' a poster who didnt agree with him by threatening libel action etc.

Perhaps this is what happens to kids who used to tantrum, stamp their feet and throw thier toys from the pram do when they grow up!?