From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 20/09/2025 07:40 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 > 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. 
  
 What does the rest of the Act say? 
 > 
 > 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 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)