From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 21/09/2025 11:16, JNugent wrote: 
 > On 20/09/2025 11:09 PM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >> On 20/09/2025 16:33, JNugent wrote: 
 >>> On 20/09/2025 07:40 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>>> On 20/09/2025 01:27, JNugent wrote: 
 >> 
 >>>>> Q: Was it "communication" (even if only attempted)? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> A: Of course it was. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Q: Was it malicious? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> A: Of course it was. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Of course it wasn't. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Your misunderstanding shows just how important it is to have a 
 >>>> knowledge 
 >>>> of the relevant law or actually to look it up if you haven't. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> And the relevant law is, unsurprisingly, the Malicious Communications 
 >>>> Act 1988, which you need to read. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Section 1 of that says: 
 >>>> 
 >>>> "Any person who sends to another person€€€ 
 >>>> 
 >>>> (a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description] 
 >>>> which conveys€€€ 
 >>>> 
 >>>> (i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; 
 >>>> 
 >>>> (b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, 
 >>>> of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, 
 >>>> 
 >>>> is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in 
 >>>> sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or 
 >>>> (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other 
 >>>> person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be 
 >>>> communicated." 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Nothing in the Windsor case was 'sent', so there is in fact no 
 >>>> 'communication' within the scope of the Act, whether malicious or not. 
 >>> 
 >>> What does the rest of the Act say? 
 >> 
 >> Nothing of any relevance as far as I can see.€€ How about you? 
 > 
 > Why has the bit (to which I was originally responding) about "malicious 
 > communication" been snipped? 
  
 Because it wasn't relevant to my reply. 
 > Did snipping it make my response... 
 > 
 > "Q: Was it "communication" (even if only attempted)? 
 > 
 > A: Of course it was. 
 > 
 > Q: Was it malicious? 
 > 
 > A: Of course it was." 
 > 
 > ...inaccurate in some way? 
  
 It was wrong for the reasons I gave in reply above.  Perhaps you should 
 consider those and give a reasoned response. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)