From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 22/09/2025 13:14, JNugent wrote: 
 > 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). 
  
 That much was completely obvious.  It didn't need saying again. 
  
 And I had already responded to the bit you refer to, so the snipping was 
 perfectly justified and normal. 
  
 >>> 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. 
  
 At least I gave reasons rather than mere assertion. 
  
 > Instead, you took it out of context 
 > and failed to recognise or address the context in which it was written. 
  
 I addressed any new points. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)