Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

direct and indirect contact

Case requests, comments, corrections, questions, answers. Just anything an everything about swarb.co.uk

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:08 pm

So are you saying ACTS before the PIN don't count ?
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:20 pm

No.

The purpose is to warn you that your conduct amounts to harassment, so that you can't in future claim that you didn't know that it did. There is nothing to stop them prosecuting you for the things you have done already, if you choose to ignore that warning, in the same way that there's nothing to stop the Police from prosecuting you without issuing a warning first.

If you are sensible you will stop all forms of contact which will mean you avoid further trouble.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6284
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby 3.14 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:43 pm

They count but the Police are being kind to you. They are warning you so that you are aware that what you are doing is wrong. All you have to do now is heed the warning.
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:48 pm

perhaps I can see possibly how they can use the act that the PIN was issued for as proof in future cases but if at the time they were aware of other acts and never mentioned them to the OP , I fail to see they can turn around and say the OP ought to have been aware they were acts of crminal harassement , when they themselves effectively said they weren't at the time.
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby atticus » Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:55 pm

OP means Original Poster, in this case veritas2409.

The acts about which the OP was warned were clearly considered to be wrong, hence the warning.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19525
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:07 pm

Maybe I wasn't clear , the PIN was for 1 specific act with no mention whatsoever of anything else , but now once charged they have thrown the kitchen sink at him , mentioning everything , most a total joke , as acts of harassment performed before the PIN
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby atticus » Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:12 pm

Is this the other charge mentioned in your thread about the guy who threw the book?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19525
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby dls » Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:18 pm

I think you may misunderstand the wy the PIN works.

There re many things people do to others which are a criminal offence. There are also many more things people do to others which cause annoyance which are not criminal offences.
The harassment laws deal almost exclusively with acts which fall short of being criminal acts but which cause distress. The purpose of the PIN is not to list things which must not be done, but generally to say that what has been done has in fact cause distress. The purpose is to ensure that if anything else is done (of whatever nature and whether listed or not) which causes distress then an harassment action can be brought.

The PIN is not listing things which must not be done, and by default suggesting that things not listed are OK. It says 'Look, what you are doing might otherwise be lawful, but in this particular context it is likely to cause distress, and being a second (at least) such act, any further action causing distress will leave you open to an harassment complaint.

The issue is in no sense direct or indirect contact. It is a question of ensuring entirely that nothing is done to cause distress, knowing (now) that it will not take much.

Stay clear
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12129
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby veritas2409 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:37 am

The issue is that when a PIN is issued and it names a specific act , and in all discussions there was no mentions of anything else. I fail to see how then all of a sudden these items are included. It is absolutely ridiculous. The court will laugh them out of town , just a waste of time not just because they were done before the PIN

The problem is what a person might think isn't indirect contact , and without going into the specifics of the case , that is were the problem arose. I fail to see why a PIN couldn't be much informative
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: direct and indirect contact

Postby shootist » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:54 am

veritas2409 wrote:The issue is that when a PIN is issued and it names a specific act , and in all discussions there was no mentions of anything else. I fail to see how then all of a sudden these items are included. It is absolutely ridiculous. The court will laugh them out of town , just a waste of time not just because they were done before the PIN


Are you speaking as a qualified and experienced lawyer offering a professional opinion on court reaction and the law, or are you just evidencing your failure to understand how this works?

veritas2409 wrote:The problem is what a person might think isn't indirect contact , and without going into the specifics of the case , that is were the problem arose. I fail to see why a PIN couldn't be much informative


Your insistence on a definitive list is not realistic. I'll try a no doubt futile example. A man sends a bunch of flowers and a note stating admiration for the recipient. Not a problem. After no response or encouragement and the tenth bunch being sent, the sender is advised that any further contact may be considered harassment. The sender then sends a box of chocolates. Do you suggest that this further contact would not be covered, or that the flowers could not be used in evidence?

But, none of this is relevant to the real issue in this thread which is that you have made up your mind and are quite certain you are in the right. Nothing could be clearer. So, why are you seeking reassurance on your opinions rather than asking for advice when you clearly indicate that you neither need nor accept either? You are so certain? Go ahead and carry on doing what you believe to be right. You are clearly totally convinced that you are right in your assertions and the only place this can be tested is in court. Then we can move on to establishing why the court/s were mistaken when they convict you.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to swarb.co.uk - case law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest