From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 22/09/2025 06:58 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 > 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. 
  
 How can that *possibly* be the case? 
  
 It was the very basis of the response to which you were replying (the 
 question of whether the law on malicious communication was relevant, 
 raised by a PP). 
  
 >> 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. 
  
 You have certainly not shown that. Instead, you took it out of context 
 and failed to recognise or address the context in which it was written. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)