From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 20/09/2025 01:27, JNugent wrote: 
 > On 19/09/2025 07:56 PM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >> On 19/09/2025 15:06, Mark Goodge wrote: 
 >>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2025 09:08:25 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk 
 >>>  wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 20:39:50 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote: 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> That's clearly a loophole, 
 >>>> 
 >>>> That's your opinion. Another is that you don't own the public facing 
 >>>> image 
 >>>> of your building, and that using a projector to realise what a few 
 >>>> seconds 
 >>>> with photoshop can do leaving zero damage (due to the masslessness of 
 >>>> photons) is just part of life. 
 >>> 
 >>> Projecting onto a building visible from a public place requires planning 
 >>> permission for advertising consent. That's because, even though the 
 >>> projection may cause no damage to the building itself, it affects the 
 >>> appearance of the building in exactly the same way as painting an 
 >>> advert on 
 >>> it. 
 >> 
 >> What law does that contravene please? 
 >> 
 >> And what do you say was being 'advertised'?€€ If nothing, what law makes 
 >> it an 'advertisement'? 
 >> 
 >>> And the projection may cause quantifiable harm, in the form of light 
 >>> pollution - both to the occupants of the building 
 >> 
 >> If so, it may be a statutory nuisance.€€ But there's no evidence that 
 >> anyone in occupation was disturbed by it or even saw it.€€ Certainly the 
 >> police took no action on that basis but only on the rather curious one 
 >> (absolutely doomed to failure in my view) of 'malicious communication' 
 >> which seems to be over-stretching the language somewhat. 
 > 
 > 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. 
  
 Nothing in the Windsor case was indecent or grossly offensive either. 
 Facts can't be; they're just facts. 
  
 If anyone considers what was projected to be 'malicious communication' 
 then so too has been any news broadcast or newspaper that has previously 
 published exactly the same images and sentiments. 
  
 That is why the case is doomed to failure. 
  
 The police have over-reacted and over-reached.  There needs to be a 
 mechanism by which they can be held to proper account. 
  
 >>> and the building's surroundings 
 >> 
 >> Do please explain what 'quantifiable harm' was caused to the building's 
 >> surroundings.€€ That seems utterly bizarre. 
 >> 
 >>> - and potential distraction (public projections are more 
 >>> stringently regulated where they are visible from a highway, for 
 >>> example). 
 >> 
 >> Did that apply? 
 >> 
 >>> None of this is related to the content of the projection. The ambush 
 >>> marketing perpetrated by FHM and BrewDog by projecting onto the 
 >>> Palace of 
 >>> Westminster is exactly the same, in this context, as the anti-Trump 
 >>> projection onto Windsor Castle. To be legitimate, all three should have 
 >>> applied for, and obtained, planning permission. But none of them did. 
 >> 
 >> The Westminster one was for marketing, so the projection could 
 >> conceivably be regarded as an advertisement.€€ The Windsor one wasn't, so 
 >> couldn't. 
 >>>> A much more fruitful approach might be to look at the fact that 
 >>>> generally 
 >>>> you need to be on public land to pull of such an event, and that is 
 >>>> probably already covered by a mountain of laws, by-laws and regulations 
 >>>> that any number of agencies are able to enforce. 
 >>> 
 >>> As I said, both in the original post and this one, it is covered by 
 >>> planning 
 >>> law. The specific problem is that planning law is entirely toothless 
 >>> against 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)