S. 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 defines gain and loss related to blackmail in monetary terms. Does this mean that a threat issued in writing can only be blackmail if there is a demand for money or property or can the financial element be indirect?
Steve Firth wrote: > S. 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 defines gain and loss related to > blackmail in monetary terms. Does this mean that a threat issued in > writing can only be blackmail if there is a demand for money or property > or can the financial element be indirect?
Textbook say "R v Bevans [1988] Crim LR 237. Gain is not restricted to money; merely obtaining something she/he did not previously have is sufficient for this offence" [Bevans wanted a morphine injection]
....but also to consider Malicious Communications if the gain is too vague to prove.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:20:02 +0000, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>S. 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 defines gain and loss related to >blackmail in monetary terms. Does this mean that a threat issued in >writing can only be blackmail if there is a demand for money or property >or can the financial element be indirect?
It can be indirect.
There must be an intention that the blackmailer gain or that the backmailee lose money or property, but so long as that intent can be proved, it doesn't have to be an explicit demand for payment (in money pr property).
And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still be blackmail. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Take my advice, I don't use it anyway. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
a...@b.invalid wrote: > Steve Firth wrote: >> S. 34(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 defines gain and loss related to >> blackmail in monetary terms. Does this mean that a threat issued in >> writing can only be blackmail if there is a demand for money or >> property or can the financial element be indirect?
> Textbook say "R v Bevans [1988] Crim LR 237. Gain is not restricted to > money; merely obtaining something she/he did not previously have is > sufficient for this offence" [Bevans wanted a morphine injection]
> ....but also to consider Malicious Communications if the gain is too > vague to prove.
The section talks about "with a view to gain" or "with intent to cause loss". Clearly not the same thing. The former is more speculative than the latter. There is nothing in the Theft Act 1968 to limit "gain" or "loss" to purely a financial perspective, although I have no doubt that the section would be so interpreted, even by analogy.
> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining > anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop > doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still be > blackmail.
Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from attending. If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company that provides animals for medical research purposes unless B promises to stop attending the same social event is that blackmail?
There's no obvious immediate financial element, but there is an intent to cause a loss to B that is IMO largely intangible. However B might have a reasonable fear that the revelation could prove damaging financially (that the revelation would lead to them being forced to leave their position or that damage to their image could lead to a loss of confidence in the company and a collapse in dividends).
Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does the fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this demand to be something other than blackmail?
%ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes: > Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining >> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop >> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still be >> blackmail.
> Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B > attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from attending. > If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company that provides > animals for medical research purposes unless B promises to stop > attending the same social event is that blackmail?
I think so. B stands to suffer a loss (by not getting what he might get: attendance at the social event). A made his demand with menaces, believing his threat would have an effect on B.
Steve Firth wrote: >> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining >> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop >> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still >> be blackmail.
> Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B > attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from > attending. If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company > that provides animals for medical research purposes unless B promises > to stop attending the same social event is that blackmail?
Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
> There's no obvious immediate financial element, but there is an intent > to cause a loss to B that is IMO largely intangible. However B might > have a reasonable fear that the revelation could prove damaging > financially (that the revelation would lead to them being forced to > leave their position or that damage to their image could lead to a > loss of confidence in the company and a collapse in dividends).
> Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does > the fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this > demand to be something other than blackmail?
A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go ahead and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably preventing him attending these social events anyway. Instead, he seems to be offering B the option of not having the revelation made. I am just surprised that offering an option in this way could be classed as blackmail, but ofc I'm not a lawyer.
-- Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't, it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
On Jan 21, 1:00 pm, "GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote: > >> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining > >> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop > >> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still > >> be blackmail.
> > Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B > > attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from > > attending. If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company > > that provides animals for medical research purposes unless B promises > > to stop attending the same social event is that blackmail?
> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
Does it matter?
> > There's no obvious immediate financial element, but there is an intent > > to cause a loss to B that is IMO largely intangible. However B might > > have a reasonable fear that the revelation could prove damaging > > financially (that the revelation would lead to them being forced to > > leave their position or that damage to their image could lead to a > > loss of confidence in the company and a collapse in dividends).
> > Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does > > the fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this > > demand to be something other than blackmail?
> A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go ahead > and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably preventing him > attending these social events anyway.
Of course, so if he's so sure of himself, why doesn't he?
> Instead, he seems to be offering B the > option of not having the revelation made.
Instead, he seems to be trying to avoid appearing like a mean spirited tell tale, and any possible backlash, and is trying to get what he wants by some underhand means.
> I am just surprised that offering > an option in this way could be classed as blackmail
Man at B&Q wrote: >> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
> Does it matter?
Well, of course it matters whether A is threatening to slander B or is merely giving him advance warning that he'll be outed if he attends the next meeting.
>> A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go >> ahead and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably >> preventing him attending these social events anyway.
> Of course, so if he's so sure of himself, why doesn't he?
>> Instead, he seems to be offering B the >> option of not having the revelation made.
> Instead, he seems to be trying to avoid appearing like a mean spirited > tell tale, and any possible backlash, and is trying to get what he > wants by some underhand means.
>> I am just surprised that offering >> an option in this way could be classed as blackmail
> Seems quite reasonable to class it as such to me.
Okay, let's give a concrete example. Suppose B is indeed selling animals for vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly meetings*. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of course, he can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him being lynched. Instead, A warns B off.
So, you still think A is mean-spirited? You still think that's blackmail? I accept that I've created quite a special situation here, but I'm just trying to define the end points of the OP's question.
*Maybe he likes animals or maybe he's being cynical and thinks this will deflect attention away from his own firm.
>> There's no obvious immediate financial element, but there is an intent >> to cause a loss to B that is IMO largely intangible. However B might >> have a reasonable fear that the revelation could prove damaging >> financially (that the revelation would lead to them being forced to >> leave their position or that damage to their image could lead to a >> loss of confidence in the company and a collapse in dividends).
>> Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does >> the fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this >> demand to be something other than blackmail?
>A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go ahead >and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably preventing him >attending these social events anyway. Instead, he seems to be offering B the >option of not having the revelation made. I am just surprised that offering >an option in this way could be classed as blackmail, but ofc I'm not a >lawyer.
In most cases of blackmail, the putative blackmailer could just go ahead and tell everyone what they know anyway. Unless any law was broken in the course of obtaining the information, there's nothing to stop them. For example, if I happen to know that one of my colleagues is having an affair with his neighbour[1], and the reason I know that is because my colleague was indiscreet enough to brag about it at work, then I would not be breaking any law at all by passing this information on to my colleage's neighbour's husband. Some people might even suggest that I have a moral obligation to do just that. But if, instead of just telling the unfortunate husband, I was to tell my colleage that I'd drop him in it unless he agrees to let me have his parking space at the office, then it's blackmail.
The same applies in Steve's hypotetical scenario. The fact that A might feel there is a very good reason to tell everyone about B's actions doesn't change the fact that if he uses that knowledge as a threat to try to get B to comply with his wishes then it is blackmail.
[1] This is entirely hypothetical, of course, and I know no such thing.
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: > The fact that A might feel there is a very good reason to tell everyone > about B's actions doesn't change the fact that if he uses that knowledge > as a threat to try to get B to comply with his wishes then it is > blackmail.
If A (concerned) says to B (louche, exploitative and callous): if you continue flirting with C (naive and vulnerable) I will tell her what you did to D (distressed and creully mistreated), is that blackmail?
Is it blackmail just because it's a threat?
Saying: if you don't do X I will do Y is a threat.
It's not blackmail when X is "pay me damages for some injury", and Y is "take you to court".
It is when X is "pay me money" and Y is "show your wife pictures of you with my prostitutes".
Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not others?
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> The fact that A might feel there is a very good reason to tell >> everyone about B's actions doesn't change the fact that if he >> uses that knowledge as a threat to try to get B to comply with >> his wishes then it is blackmail.
> If A (concerned) says to B (louche, exploitative and callous): if > you continue flirting with C (naive and vulnerable) I will tell > her what you did to D (distressed and creully mistreated), is that > blackmail?
IMO yes. If A just tells C that is fine.
> Is it blackmail just because it's a threat?
Yes
> Saying: if you don't do X I will do Y is a threat.
> It's not blackmail when X is "pay me damages for some injury", and > Y is "take you to court".
I think that taking someone to court is a specifically protected form of aggression - but even then to threaten a case in order to embarrass someone rather than in order to win could be blackmail??? What does a lawyer think?
> It is when X is "pay me money" and Y is "show your wife pictures > of you with my prostitutes".
> Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not > others?
There was a thread on here recently about someone threatening to report an unconnected crime if the other party did not forgo a debt. Most people seemed to think this was blackmail. There are actually rather few threats that could not be construed as blackmail if done to change the other party's actions.
How about a threat to defend oneself if attacked? Could this be blackmail? I doubt it if the attack would be itself illegal.
>> The fact that A might feel there is a very good reason to tell everyone >> about B's actions doesn't change the fact that if he uses that knowledge >> as a threat to try to get B to comply with his wishes then it is >> blackmail.
>If A (concerned) says to B (louche, exploitative and callous): if you >continue flirting with C (naive and vulnerable) I will tell her what you >did to D (distressed and creully mistreated), is that blackmail?
>Is it blackmail just because it's a threat?
>Saying: if you don't do X I will do Y is a threat.
>It's not blackmail when X is "pay me damages for some injury", and Y is >"take you to court".
>It is when X is "pay me money" and Y is "show your wife pictures of you >with my prostitutes".
>Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not others?
Because it is only if the menaces are "unwarranted" that it is blackmail.
And what the law says is: ------------------------------------------------------------ or this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. -----------------------------------------------------------
So in the first of your cases, it is not unwarranted, unless the demand is for more money than could possibly be expected to be won in court, or there would be no reasonable prospect of winning the court case.
If the threat of court action is one which could not actually be carried out, or which had no chance of success, then it probably would be blackmail. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either. To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
>> The fact that A might feel there is a very good reason to tell everyone >> about B's actions doesn't change the fact that if he uses that knowledge >> as a threat to try to get B to comply with his wishes then it is >> blackmail.
>If A (concerned) says to B (louche, exploitative and callous): if you >continue flirting with C (naive and vulnerable) I will tell her what you >did to D (distressed and creully mistreated), is that blackmail?
No.
It would become blackmail if A says to B "I'll tell C what you did to D if you don't pay to keep it quiet".
>Is it blackmail just because it's a threat?
>Saying: if you don't do X I will do Y is a threat.
>It's not blackmail when X is "pay me damages for some injury", and Y is >"take you to court".
>It is when X is "pay me money" and Y is "show your wife pictures of you >with my prostitutes".
>Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not others?
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: > >Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not others?
> Because that's how the law defines it.
But the law doesn't give lists of things that are and aren't blackmail, it gives (Alex's answer) conditions that must be met for a threat not to be blackmail:
* one has reasonable grounds for making the demand that's being backed up by the threat; and * the threat is a 'proper means' of backing up demands
Mark Goodge wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:15:02 +0000, D.M. Procida put finger to > keyboard and typed:
>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The fact that A might feel there is a very good reason to tell >>> everyone about B's actions doesn't change the fact that if he uses >>> that knowledge as a threat to try to get B to comply with his >>> wishes then it is blackmail.
>> If A (concerned) says to B (louche, exploitative and callous): if you >> continue flirting with C (naive and vulnerable) I will tell her what >> you did to D (distressed and creully mistreated), is that blackmail?
> No.
> It would become blackmail if A says to B "I'll tell C what you did to > D if you don't pay to keep it quiet".
>> Is it blackmail just because it's a threat?
>> Saying: if you don't do X I will do Y is a threat.
>> It's not blackmail when X is "pay me damages for some injury", and Y >> is "take you to court".
>> It is when X is "pay me money" and Y is "show your wife pictures of >> you with my prostitutes".
>> Why is it blackmail when X and Y are certain things, but not others?
> Because that's how the law defines it.
There is a useful summary of the issues surrounding blackmail here:
That is extremely useful. But the question of "gain" is still not clarified within that page.
I can see that where money, discount, promotion are involved that the gain (or loss) is simple to prove. However the nature of a social situation is more tenuous.
Is an attempt by an individual to puff up his own ego, while doing down another sufficient of a gain for blackmail to be proven?
Again I'm thinking of a situation in which one party attempts to blackmail (I can't think of a better word at present) another in order to gain some real or imaginary social advancement or some desired social outcome by a threat to reveal information.
I would also like to know if the veracity of that information is ever at issue. I don't think, either from my reading of the Theft Act or from that page that is referred to above, that truth is an essential component of blackmail. The blackmailer simply has to believe the tale he is telling, and needs to accompany that tale with a demand for "gain" on his part or "loss" on the part the victim.
Indeed the nature of the menacing threat seems to be very broad, and the page referred to states that "The menaces can be express or implied" hence a threat of the following nature:
"Whether or not you would like [this information being revealed to people who know you] is up to you.
"You [did something I don't like] and I [will publish information that has come to my attention which I believe to be embarassing to you] if that is what you want. I'm sure that quite a few of [the people who know you] would take delight in your embarassment.
"What I would prefer, is for you to [comply with a demand I made to you earlier that does not involve payment or loss]."
Now, the question is, does the above amount to blackmail? On the face of it, to me, that is a fairly standard blackmail letter but the demand being made is not obviously one that leads to "gain". It is possible that the blackmailer may be said to have "gained" by having their demands agreed to, is that sufficient "gain" to establish that the communication is blackmail?
If it does not, does it fall within the definition of "Malicious Communications"? It does seem to be a message sent solely with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety. Again, my interpretation of both the Theft Act and the Malicious Communications Act is that the recipient of the threat does not need to see the threat as credible. The only issue at stake is the intent of the accused and the belief of the accused. And once more, the communication does not need to be received in order for the offence to have been committed.
Am I making any obvious schoolboy errors in my reasoning here?
GB <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Steve Firth wrote: > >> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining > >> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop > >> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still > >> be blackmail.
> > Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and B > > attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from > > attending. If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a company > > that provides animals for medical research purposes unless B promises > > to stop attending the same social event is that blackmail?
> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
[snip]
It's not a real situation, no. I think, and I may be wrong in which case please correct me, that you are taking the view that the end justifies the means. In this case your interest in "is this true" gives a feeling that you may look on the director of a company supplying animals for medical research in a different way to the way that you would look at some other person.
The example was chosen to illustrate a situation in which no demand for payment is obvious, but which creates a situation that one party may not wish information, in the public domain, to be circulated to a group of people.
To further complicate the situation we may assume that B actually doesn't care about the revelation.
B knows that the information that A has obtained is largely false, and was the result of a smear campaign launched against B by animal activists in a previous decade. B therefore knows that the "revelation" that A is threatening to make is hollow.
However as I understand it, the criminal offence of blackmail relates to issuing threats in order to gain an advantage. There isn't, as far as I know, any requirement for those threats to be credible or those threats to be received. The offence is the issuing of the threat.
> > Is that relatively oblique threat still likely to be blackmail? Does > > the fact that there is no demand for money or property cause this > > demand to be something other than blackmail?
> A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go ahead > and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably preventing him > attending these social events anyway. Instead, he seems to be offering B the > option of not having the revelation made. I am just surprised that offering > an option in this way could be classed as blackmail, but ofc I'm not a > lawyer.
I think you may be misunderstanding blackmail. In any case of blackmail the blackmailer could just make the information public. What identifies blackmail is the offer to keep information secret provided that the victim agrees to make payments or to give the blackmailer <something> in return. What I am not clear about is how real the <something> has to be.
If, say the demand was for something that has no possible monetary outcome. Say the blackmailer demanded that the victim resign a voluntary position and appoint the blackmailer to that same position. There's no monetary gain, and there may be no gain at all other than the boosting of the blackmailer's ego. Is that intangible gain sufficient for the actions to be blackmail?
Morally I feel this is blackmail, but I'm trying to understand the legal position, not an emotional response.
> Indeed the nature of the menacing threat seems to be very broad, and > the page referred to states that "The menaces can be express or > implied" hence a threat of the following nature:
> "Whether or not you would like [this information being revealed to > people who know you] is up to you.
> "You [did something I don't like] and I [will publish information that > has come to my attention which I believe to be embarassing to you] if > that is what you want. I'm sure that quite a few of [the people who > know you] would take delight in your embarassment.
> "What I would prefer, is for you to [comply with a demand I made to > you earlier that does not involve payment or loss]."
> Now, the question is, does the above amount to blackmail? On the face > of it, to me, that is a fairly standard blackmail letter but the > demand being made is not obviously one that leads to "gain". It is > possible that the blackmailer may be said to have "gained" by having > their demands agreed to, is that sufficient "gain" to establish that > the communication is blackmail?
See Alex Heney's post "(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
So, you are not approaching this from the right direction ISTM. The above demand you outlined is undoubtedly potentially blackmail. However, you can't divorce the wording from the substance. So, is the demand reasonable, and is the whole approach 'proper'?
There have been a couple of examples given of threats which are perfectly proper - eg "Suppose B is indeed selling animals for vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly meetings. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of course, he can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him being lynched. Instead, A warns B off."
I would suggest that it doesn't matter how A words this warning. It's perfectly reasonable to demand that B doesn't attend the meetings, and the use of menaces is justified.
Steve Firth wrote: > GB <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Steve Firth wrote: >>>> And remember too that the blackmailer doesn't have to be gaining >>>> anything. A demand that the backmailee destroy something, or stop >>>> doing something that would otherwise gain him something could still >>>> be blackmail.
>>> Thanks, I wonder how indirect that could be. If, for example, A and >>> B attend the same social events and A wishes to prevent B from >>> attending. If A threatens to reveal that B is a director of a >>> company that provides animals for medical research purposes unless >>> B promises to stop attending the same social event is that >>> blackmail?
>> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is. > [snip]
> It's not a real situation, no. I think, and I may be wrong in which > case please correct me, that you are taking the view that the end > justifies the means. In this case your interest in "is this true" > gives a feeling that you may look on the director of a company > supplying animals for medical research in a different way to the way > that you would look at some other person.
Not at all. What I meant is that a threat to knowingly spread untrue rumours can never be justified. It doesn't meet the twin criteria of "(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
On Jan 21, 5:20 pm, "GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Man at B&Q wrote: > >> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
> > Does it matter?
> Well, of course it matters whether A is threatening to slander B or is > merely giving him advance warning that he'll be outed if he attends the next > meeting.
The question was "is it true". Does it matter if the situation described is true or merely a hypothetical illustration of a situation?
> >> A has every right to tell everybody about B's work. He could just go > >> ahead and do it - causing much ebarrassment to B and so probably > >> preventing him attending these social events anyway.
> > Of course, so if he's so sure of himself, why doesn't he?
> >> Instead, he seems to be offering B the > >> option of not having the revelation made.
> > Instead, he seems to be trying to avoid appearing like a mean spirited > > tell tale, and any possible backlash, and is trying to get what he > > wants by some underhand means.
> >> I am just surprised that offering > >> an option in this way could be classed as blackmail
> > Seems quite reasonable to class it as such to me.
> Okay, let's give a concrete example. Suppose B is indeed selling animals for > vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly > meetings*. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of course, he > can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him being lynched. > Instead, A warns B off.
> So, you still think A is mean-spirited? You still think that's blackmail?
Yes, if there's a threat to do something if B doesn't comply. If A asked B nicely not to attend then that would be different.
> > Indeed the nature of the menacing threat seems to be very broad, and > > the page referred to states that "The menaces can be express or > > implied" hence a threat of the following nature:
> > "Whether or not you would like [this information being revealed to > > people who know you] is up to you.
> > "You [did something I don't like] and I [will publish information that > > has come to my attention which I believe to be embarassing to you] if > > that is what you want. I'm sure that quite a few of [the people who > > know you] would take delight in your embarassment.
> > "What I would prefer, is for you to [comply with a demand I made to > > you earlier that does not involve payment or loss]."
> > Now, the question is, does the above amount to blackmail? On the face > > of it, to me, that is a fairly standard blackmail letter but the > > demand being made is not obviously one that leads to "gain". It is > > possible that the blackmailer may be said to have "gained" by having > > their demands agreed to, is that sufficient "gain" to establish that > > the communication is blackmail?
> See Alex Heney's post > "(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and > (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the > demand."
> So, you are not approaching this from the right direction ISTM. The above > demand you outlined is undoubtedly potentially blackmail. However, you can't > divorce the wording from the substance. So, is the demand reasonable, and is > the whole approach 'proper'?
> There have been a couple of examples given of threats which are perfectly > proper - eg > "Suppose B is indeed selling animals for > vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly > meetings. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of course, he > can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him being lynched. > Instead, A warns B off."
> I would suggest that it doesn't matter how A words this warning.
Even if it contained a threat of violence?
> It's > perfectly reasonable to demand that B doesn't attend the meetings,
Is it? I would imagine it depends on conditions of membership of the group.
> and the > use of menaces is justified.
Not the sort of menace you're likely to get from an Animal Rights Activist.
Man at B&Q wrote: >> There have been a couple of examples given of threats which are >> perfectly proper - eg >> "Suppose B is indeed selling animals for >> vivisection but he likes to attend his local animal rights monthly >> meetings. A quite reasonably decides that's inappropriate. Of >> course, he can out B at the next meeting, but that might lead to him >> being lynched. Instead, A warns B off."
>> I would suggest that it doesn't matter how A words this warning.
> Even if it contained a threat of violence?
No, but what about: ' If you attend, I'll out you at the meeting, and I can't be held responsible for the consequences.'? That's not a threat of violence per se.
Man at B&Q wrote: > On Jan 21, 5:20 pm, "GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Man at B&Q wrote: >>>> Can I just check: is this true? I'm assuming it is.
>>> Does it matter?
>> Well, of course it matters whether A is threatening to slander B or >> is merely giving him advance warning that he'll be outed if he >> attends the next meeting.
> The question was "is it true". Does it matter if the situation > described is true or merely a hypothetical illustration of a > situation?
GB <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > It's not a real situation, no. I think, and I may be wrong in which > > case please correct me, that you are taking the view that the end > > justifies the means. In this case your interest in "is this true" > > gives a feeling that you may look on the director of a company > > supplying animals for medical research in a different way to the way > > that you would look at some other person.
> Not at all. What I meant is that a threat to knowingly spread untrue rumours > can never be justified.
I think you're introducing an element that should not be introduced. The "untrue rumours" isn't relevant to blackmail. The information may be true, or a complete fabrication. It is irrelevant to determining if the threat is blackmail.
> It doesn't meet the twin criteria of > "(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and > (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the > demand."
> Hence, it will be blackmail.
And in this you are ignoring the element of "gain" or "loss" which is the element about which I am unsure. If the gain or loss is not financial and cannot easily be described in financial terms is the threat still blackmail?
