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

Malicious Communications Act

All matters involving criminal law

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:12 pm

atticus wrote:You may very well think that, but when discussing the meaning of words in an Act of Parliament, surely the better place to start is the words of the statute.

If there is any question of them differing from the normal usage then yes, but OP appears to be struggling with the basic concept that the deliberate doing of harm is a wrong that the law seeks to prevent or reprimand.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby dls » Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:00 pm

There appear to be different understandings of what the OP is asking.

I thought he was asking that if one director makes a claim that another is wrongfully seeking to influence an independent expert, is that claim a malicious communication within the Act.

Nothing was said that it is an assertion made over a public telecommunications network, or that it is intended to create distress or anxiety, or that it is untrue.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11920
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:37 pm

dls wrote:There appear to be different understandings of what the OP is asking...

I had taken his original question to have been answered and was addressing his incredulity that the Malicious Communications Act directs itself at malicious communications.

He has flounced off anyway so it probably doesn't matter what he was asking.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby atticus » Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:51 pm

The OP may return.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:21 pm

dls wrote:I thought he was asking that if one director makes a claim that another is wrongfully seeking to influence an independent expert, is that claim a malicious communication within the Act...

It appears to me that the intent of the communication is to ascertain whether there is an improper influence on the decision making of the company.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby Spankymonkey » Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:25 pm

atticus wrote:The better response to the OP's statement about his qualifications would be to ask him to consider the Act of Parliament in question, and to comment on the particular sections he thinks might apply, and why.


That is in effect what I invited the OP to do from the outset. I also find it improbable (although not impossible) that the OP has the qualification he claims.

atticus wrote:I thought he was asking that if one director makes a claim that another is wrongfully seeking to influence an independent expert, is that claim a malicious communication within the Act.


I thought the same thing. But rather than insult the OP with a truly 'patronising' reaction to such a bizarre misapplication of the act, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and focused on the meaning of the act. If that is patronising, then I'm sorry he feels that way. I would hope as a student of law he would have taken it as an encouragement to research. Either way, his question was answered.
Spankymonkey
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby atticus » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:24 pm

The second quotation is incorrectly attributed to me. It was hairy.

Not everyone who has a law degree is a practising lawyer, or took their degree recently.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:51 pm

atticus wrote:The second quotation is incorrectly attributed to me. It was hairy...

dls actually.
I don't think the intent was to cause you distress or anxiety...
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby atticus » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:10 pm

I do not suggest either was caused.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19032
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Malicious Communications Act

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:16 pm

atticus wrote:I do not suggest either was caused.

I should have put a yellow splodge in there, but I know they upset you.
The question now is, since I know they upset you, and I have no other purpose for putting it here, is this-> :shock: yellow splodge a malicious communication? :?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest