Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Conduct unbecoming of a dentist
60 views
Skip to first unread message
Phil Mcbride
Nov 17, 2012, 6:25:02 PM11/17/12
to
Is there a regulatory body for dentists that would investigate
complaints about a dentist's behaviour and if necessary take action?
To cut a long story short one of my children had orthodontic work
done. We were not happy with the tooth alignment at the end of the
treatment when the braces came off, and very calmly complained to the
dentist. The dentist became irate in the practice and verbally abused
my daughter in front of his staff and other patients.
One of the practice nurses apologised profusely for him and told us he
had a reputation in the clinic for being ill tempered. Before my
daughter removed him as friends on her Facebook page, he wrote an
abusive email to her basically saying she has bad teeth and will
always have bad teeth. We have this on record.
We have tried to report the matter to the police as harassment but
they aren't interested. They said there must be a clear danger to life
for it to involve them. We reported it to FB about two weeks ago and
no action has been taken.
Will the General Dental Council be interested?
complaints about a dentist's behaviour and if necessary take action?
To cut a long story short one of my children had orthodontic work
done. We were not happy with the tooth alignment at the end of the
treatment when the braces came off, and very calmly complained to the
dentist. The dentist became irate in the practice and verbally abused
my daughter in front of his staff and other patients.
One of the practice nurses apologised profusely for him and told us he
had a reputation in the clinic for being ill tempered. Before my
daughter removed him as friends on her Facebook page, he wrote an
abusive email to her basically saying she has bad teeth and will
always have bad teeth. We have this on record.
We have tried to report the matter to the police as harassment but
they aren't interested. They said there must be a clear danger to life
for it to involve them. We reported it to FB about two weeks ago and
no action has been taken.
Will the General Dental Council be interested?
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 3:10:02 AM11/18/12
to
In message
<21899a02-cf8c-460d...@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, at
23:25:02 on Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Phil Mcbride <philmc...@gmail.com>
remarked:
in on 25th November, which should make things clearer.
--
Roland Perry
<21899a02-cf8c-460d...@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, at
23:25:02 on Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Phil Mcbride <philmc...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>We have tried to report the matter to the police as harassment but
>they aren't interested. They said there must be a clear danger to life
>for it to involve them.
That is of course wrong on various levels. The new harassment law comes
>they aren't interested. They said there must be a clear danger to life
>for it to involve them.
in on 25th November, which should make things clearer.
--
Roland Perry
GB
Nov 18, 2012, 7:10:02 AM11/18/12
to
along the lines of:
"I did my level best to sort your teeth out, but you didn't keep the
d*** brace in. I think you're hopeless, you have the awful-looking teeth
you deserve, and you only have yourself to blame. Don't darken the steps
of my practice again."
That might be of interest to the GDC, but it's hardly harassment (in my
view**). I don't want to get into details, but it would be wrong to give
the OP the impression that the police ought to have acted unless you
have more info about what was in the email.
** My example is just a strongly-worded statement that the patient is to
blame, in response to the allegation that has been made to the dentist
that the poor outcome is his fault, and it is not intended to cause
distress.
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 7:40:02 AM11/18/12
to
In message <50a8ceef$0$1155$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 12:10:02 on
Sun, 18 Nov 2012, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
(1) that it's only a "section 4" offence that requires fear, and
(2) then only fear "of violence" (rather than of your life).
A section 2 offence, on the other hand, only refers to harassment
(undefined, but it mentions a "course of conduct" which is generally
interpreted to mean two instances).
So sending someone away in the circumstances described is simply not
correct.
The new law, as well as defining some of the activities regarded as
"stalking" adds "causing serious alarm or distress which has a
substantial adverse effect on the usual day-to-day activities" to
section 4.
I'm not suggesting that if repeated the OP's experience would
automatically be an offence[1], I'm simply pointing out that the
police's "blanket" excuse was unfounded (on the old law) and that the
new law may bring about some greater awareness in this area.
[1] But any additional adverse postings appearing online might be.
--
Roland Perry
Sun, 18 Nov 2012, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
>>> We have tried to report the matter to the police as harassment but
>>> they aren't interested. They said there must be a clear danger to life
>>> for it to involve them.
>>
>> That is of course wrong on various levels. The new harassment law comes
>> in on 25th November, which should make things clearer.
>
>I have no idea what the email said, but suppose it was a bit of a rant
>along the lines of:
>
>"I did my level best to sort your teeth out, but you didn't keep the
>d*** brace in. I think you're hopeless, you have the awful-looking
>teeth you deserve, and you only have yourself to blame. Don't darken
>the steps of my practice again."
>
>That might be of interest to the GDC, but it's hardly harassment (in my
>view**). I don't want to get into details, but it would be wrong to
>give the OP the impression that the police ought to have acted unless
>you have more info about what was in the email.
The things that are wrong with the original police response are
>>> they aren't interested. They said there must be a clear danger to life
>>> for it to involve them.
>>
>> That is of course wrong on various levels. The new harassment law comes
>> in on 25th November, which should make things clearer.
>
>I have no idea what the email said, but suppose it was a bit of a rant
>along the lines of:
>
>"I did my level best to sort your teeth out, but you didn't keep the
>d*** brace in. I think you're hopeless, you have the awful-looking
>teeth you deserve, and you only have yourself to blame. Don't darken
>the steps of my practice again."
>
>That might be of interest to the GDC, but it's hardly harassment (in my
>view**). I don't want to get into details, but it would be wrong to
>give the OP the impression that the police ought to have acted unless
>you have more info about what was in the email.
(1) that it's only a "section 4" offence that requires fear, and
(2) then only fear "of violence" (rather than of your life).
A section 2 offence, on the other hand, only refers to harassment
(undefined, but it mentions a "course of conduct" which is generally
interpreted to mean two instances).
So sending someone away in the circumstances described is simply not
correct.
The new law, as well as defining some of the activities regarded as
"stalking" adds "causing serious alarm or distress which has a
substantial adverse effect on the usual day-to-day activities" to
section 4.
I'm not suggesting that if repeated the OP's experience would
automatically be an offence[1], I'm simply pointing out that the
police's "blanket" excuse was unfounded (on the old law) and that the
new law may bring about some greater awareness in this area.
[1] But any additional adverse postings appearing online might be.
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
Nov 18, 2012, 8:00:05 AM11/18/12
to
On 2012-11-18 12:10:02 +0000, GB said:
On 18/11/2012 08:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
<21899a02-cf8c-460d...@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, at
23:25:02 on Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Phil Mcbride <philmc...@gmail.com>
remarked:
We have tried to report the matter to the police as harassment but
they aren't interested. They said there must be a clear danger to life
for it to involve them.
That is of course wrong on various levels. The new harassment law comes
in on 25th November, which should make things clearer.
I have no idea what the email said, but suppose it was a bit of a rant along the lines of:
"I did my level best to sort your teeth out, but you didn't keep the d*** brace in. I think you're hopeless, you have the awful-looking teeth you deserve, and you only have yourself to blame. Don't darken the steps of my practice again."
That might be of interest to the GDC, but it's hardly harassment (in my view**). I don't want to get into details, but it would be wrong to give the OP the impression that the police ought to have acted unless you have more info about what was in the email.
I think you may be underestimating the success of the lobby groups who have been trying to bring in the criminalisation of any kind of critical speech on social media. They have been deliberately conflating the risks of small children[1] being bullied (although of course small children are not supposed to be using Facebook for instance) with any kind of rudeness among adults. It remains to be seen how much they have succeeded. Mr Perry is on record as taking one side on this issue.
[1] In this case, if the dentist was rude to a child, I think the GDC should make it plain to him this is unacceptable: but I don't think the criminal law should be involved.
--
Percy Picacity
GB
Nov 18, 2012, 8:20:02 AM11/18/12
to
On 18/11/2012 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
> The things that are wrong with the original police response are
>
> (1) that it's only a "section 4" offence that requires fear, and
> (2) then only fear "of violence" (rather than of your life).
>
> A section 2 offence, on the other hand, only refers to harassment
> (undefined, but it mentions a "course of conduct" which is generally
> interpreted to mean two instances).
>
> So sending someone away in the circumstances described is simply not
> correct.
Leaving aside whether the police correctly explained the law or not, are
> The things that are wrong with the original police response are
>
> (1) that it's only a "section 4" offence that requires fear, and
> (2) then only fear "of violence" (rather than of your life).
>
> A section 2 offence, on the other hand, only refers to harassment
> (undefined, but it mentions a "course of conduct" which is generally
> interpreted to mean two instances).
>
> So sending someone away in the circumstances described is simply not
> correct.
you saying that a single email saying that the ex-patient has bad teeth
that can't be corrected is harassment?
I am just asking so that you make it clearer to the OP whether you think
he should be badgering the police to take action.
My own view, FWIW, is that the GDC can deal with this matter quite
adequately.
Even if it were harassment, the police are entitled to decide which
cases to deal with and which to ignore.
>
> The new law,
Does this have retrospective effect?
EJones
Nov 18, 2012, 6:35:09 AM11/18/12
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0nqErbdu...@perry.co.uk...
If so he was telling the truth however unpalatable this is.
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 8:35:16 AM11/18/12
to
In message <647bjm....@news.alt.net>, at 13:00:05 on Sun, 18 Nov
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>I think you may be underestimating the success of the lobby groups who
>have been trying to bring in the criminalisation of any kind of
>critical speech on social media.
I'm not aware of the activities of any lobby groups in that area.
>They have been deliberately conflating the risks of small children[1]
>being bullied (although of course small children are not supposed to be
>using Facebook for instance) with any kind of rudeness among adults.
That's a completely different issue, and while there are groups who
would wish bullying of children (especially of teens) to be taken more
seriously, they regard the attention paid to "rudeness amongst adults"
as being a serious distraction.
> It remains to be seen how much they have succeeded. Mr Perry is on
>record as taking one side on this issue.
I'm currently "on the side" of victims in the area of overlap between
domestic violence and online stalking, plus those teens (you can
legitimately have a Facebook account if 13+) whose life is at risk due
to online bullying, "outing" and dissemination of risqué photos by exes.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>I think you may be underestimating the success of the lobby groups who
>have been trying to bring in the criminalisation of any kind of
>critical speech on social media.
>They have been deliberately conflating the risks of small children[1]
>being bullied (although of course small children are not supposed to be
>using Facebook for instance) with any kind of rudeness among adults.
would wish bullying of children (especially of teens) to be taken more
seriously, they regard the attention paid to "rudeness amongst adults"
as being a serious distraction.
> It remains to be seen how much they have succeeded. Mr Perry is on
>record as taking one side on this issue.
domestic violence and online stalking, plus those teens (you can
legitimately have a Facebook account if 13+) whose life is at risk due
to online bullying, "outing" and dissemination of risqué photos by exes.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 9:00:04 AM11/18/12
to
In message <38ydnWYCIsjVWjXN...@bt.com>, at 11:35:09 on
Sun, 18 Nov 2012, EJones <ejon...@btopenworld.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
Sun, 18 Nov 2012, EJones <ejon...@btopenworld.com> remarked:
>Can I ask one question - does your daughter have bad teeth?
>If so he was telling the truth however unpalatable this is.
Not my daughter.
>If so he was telling the truth however unpalatable this is.
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
Nov 18, 2012, 9:00:25 AM11/18/12
to
activities was *used*, rather than the invention of new "Internet
bullying" laws that are likely to be used to inhibit free speech, on
such matters as 'our boys' fighting various brands of freedom fighters,
rather than against real life bullies.
--
Percy Picacity
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 8:45:02 AM11/18/12
to
In message <50a8dfa4$0$1149$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 13:20:02 on
could be harassment.
>I am just asking so that you make it clearer to the OP whether you
>think he should be badgering the police to take action.
>
>My own view, FWIW, is that the GDC can deal with this matter quite
>adequately.
>
>Even if it were harassment, the police are entitled to decide which
>cases to deal with and which to ignore.
The police do indeed have "thresholds" - for example it's often said
they won't look into personal fraud unless it's over £5k and corporate
fraud at least an order of magnitude more than that. But try pinching a
50p bar of chocolate from a supermarket and see if they laugh that one
off.
What I'm interested in currently is what the thresholds are for stalking
and harassment, and am fairly happy with the new definition of "causing
Tweeted insults that have hit the headlines recently.
>> The new law,
>
>Does this have retrospective effect?
As ever, I wouldn't expect so.
--
Roland Perry
Sun, 18 Nov 2012, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
>Leaving aside whether the police correctly explained the law or not,
>are you saying that a single email saying that the ex-patient has bad
>teeth that can't be corrected is harassment?
I thought I'd made it clear that I didn't think that a single email
>are you saying that a single email saying that the ex-patient has bad
>teeth that can't be corrected is harassment?
could be harassment.
>I am just asking so that you make it clearer to the OP whether you
>think he should be badgering the police to take action.
>
>My own view, FWIW, is that the GDC can deal with this matter quite
>adequately.
>
>Even if it were harassment, the police are entitled to decide which
>cases to deal with and which to ignore.
they won't look into personal fraud unless it's over £5k and corporate
fraud at least an order of magnitude more than that. But try pinching a
50p bar of chocolate from a supermarket and see if they laugh that one
off.
What I'm interested in currently is what the thresholds are for stalking
and harassment, and am fairly happy with the new definition of "causing
serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on the
usual day-to-day activities", which can't really be said for many of the
Tweeted insults that have hit the headlines recently.
>> The new law,
>
>Does this have retrospective effect?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 9:30:03 AM11/18/12
to
In message <647es3....@news.alt.net>, at 14:00:25 on Sun, 18 Nov
the police to take it seriously.
>rather than the invention of new "Internet bullying" laws
There aren't any such new laws, unless you mean the dusting off of the
Malicious Communications Act to apply to some, which is quite frankly an
unwelcome distraction for the work I'm doing (and we've written to the
DPP and told him that).
>that are likely to be used to inhibit free speech, on such matters as
>'our boys' fighting various brands of freedom fighters, rather than
>against real life bullies.
The only new law that's coming in is in effect "guidance" written on the
face of the Harassment Act about what that existing offence was actually
supposed to mean. And it's not a form of faux-libel or being too gobby
about a public figure, it's for where activities like domestic violence
have spilled over into cyberspace.
We seem to be in fierce agreement over the free speech issue, btw.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>> I'm currently "on the side" of victims in the area of overlap
>>between domestic violence and online stalking, plus those teens (you
>>can legitimately have a Facebook account if 13+) whose life is at
>>risk due to online bullying, "outing" and dissemination of risqué
>>photos by exes.
>
>>between domestic violence and online stalking, plus those teens (you
>>can legitimately have a Facebook account if 13+) whose life is at
>>risk due to online bullying, "outing" and dissemination of risqué
>>photos by exes.
>
>And some of us would rather that the existing law governing such
>activities was *used*,
So would we, but after over a decade there's been no progress getting
>activities was *used*,
the police to take it seriously.
>rather than the invention of new "Internet bullying" laws
Malicious Communications Act to apply to some, which is quite frankly an
unwelcome distraction for the work I'm doing (and we've written to the
DPP and told him that).
>that are likely to be used to inhibit free speech, on such matters as
>'our boys' fighting various brands of freedom fighters, rather than
>against real life bullies.
face of the Harassment Act about what that existing offence was actually
supposed to mean. And it's not a form of faux-libel or being too gobby
about a public figure, it's for where activities like domestic violence
have spilled over into cyberspace.
We seem to be in fierce agreement over the free speech issue, btw.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Firth
Nov 18, 2012, 10:05:02 AM11/18/12
to
Every practice must have a designated complaints manager. You need to
make your complaint in the first instance to that person.
You should complain in writing, not by email, and you should make your
complaint factual with no emotive words or judgement. Your points are
probably best made as simple bullet points and clear direct questions.
Keep a log of the letters you send and the replies you receive. The
practive *must* respond with an acknowledgement within three days and a
full response within ten days.
Possible responses are that the practice responds and the dentist in
question makes an explanation and offers a full apology, or the practice
responds and the dentist offers no apology or an inadequate response, or
the practice ignores your letters. If it's the latter two you can take
up the matter with the GDC but they will probably start by investigating
why the complaints procedure is not being followed. You will need to use
their process to explain that it is the professional ability of the
dentist that is the matter of concern, not (presumably) compensation for
poor dental treatment.
Once you have your written response from the dental practice start here:
http://www.gdc-uk.org/Membersofpublic/Raisingaconcern/Pages/default.aspx
make your complaint in the first instance to that person.
You should complain in writing, not by email, and you should make your
complaint factual with no emotive words or judgement. Your points are
probably best made as simple bullet points and clear direct questions.
Keep a log of the letters you send and the replies you receive. The
practive *must* respond with an acknowledgement within three days and a
full response within ten days.
Possible responses are that the practice responds and the dentist in
question makes an explanation and offers a full apology, or the practice
responds and the dentist offers no apology or an inadequate response, or
the practice ignores your letters. If it's the latter two you can take
up the matter with the GDC but they will probably start by investigating
why the complaints procedure is not being followed. You will need to use
their process to explain that it is the professional ability of the
dentist that is the matter of concern, not (presumably) compensation for
poor dental treatment.
Once you have your written response from the dental practice start here:
http://www.gdc-uk.org/Membersofpublic/Raisingaconcern/Pages/default.aspx
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 10:55:02 AM11/18/12
to
In message <87haon2...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 15:30:03 on Sun, 18
Nov 2012, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:
...some cases of people being gobby on social networks...
They are not the kind of cases which have caused the update to the
harassment law, nor have they any relevance to domestic violence or
teenage bullying scenarios.
>haven't been investigated or prosecuted as harassment, but as malicious
>communications.
That's because they aren't harassment.
--
Roland Perry
Nov 2012, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:
>> What I'm interested in currently is what the thresholds are for
>> stalking and harassment, and am fairly happy with the new definition
>> of "causing serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse
>> effect on the usual day-to-day activities", which can't really be said
>> for many of the Tweeted insults that have hit the headlines recently.
>
>But that isn't relevant, is it? Those recent publicised cases
>> stalking and harassment, and am fairly happy with the new definition
>> of "causing serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse
>> effect on the usual day-to-day activities", which can't really be said
>> for many of the Tweeted insults that have hit the headlines recently.
>
...some cases of people being gobby on social networks...
They are not the kind of cases which have caused the update to the
harassment law, nor have they any relevance to domestic violence or
teenage bullying scenarios.
>haven't been investigated or prosecuted as harassment, but as malicious
>communications.
That's because they aren't harassment.
--
Roland Perry
GB
Nov 18, 2012, 12:20:01 PM11/18/12
to
On 18/11/2012 13:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Leaving aside whether the police correctly explained the law or not,
>> are you saying that a single email saying that the ex-patient has bad
>> teeth that can't be corrected is harassment?
>
> I thought I'd made it clear that I didn't think that a single email
> could be harassment.
It was not clear, I am afraid. What you actually said was:
>> Leaving aside whether the police correctly explained the law or not,
>> are you saying that a single email saying that the ex-patient has bad
>> teeth that can't be corrected is harassment?
>
> I thought I'd made it clear that I didn't think that a single email
> could be harassment.
"The things that are wrong with the original police response are ... So
sending someone away in the circumstances described is simply not correct. "
That implied that you thought that the OP was wrongly treated by the
Police (as opposed to misinformed). I am, now, pretty sure that's not
what you meant.
>
> What I'm interested in currently is what the thresholds are for stalking
> and harassment, and am fairly happy with the new definition of "causing
> serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on the
> usual day-to-day activities", which can't really be said for many of the
> Tweeted insults that have hit the headlines recently.
>
>>> The new law,
>>
>> Does this have retrospective effect?
>
> As ever, I wouldn't expect so.
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 4:20:02 PM11/18/12
to
In message <50a9187a$0$1141$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 17:20:01 on
can make complaints about harassment. That's just not the case, and is
independent of whether what happened to them was in fact legally
harassment or not.
--
Roland Perry
>"The things that are wrong with the original police response are ... So
>sending someone away in the circumstances described is simply not
>correct. "
My issue is the police saying that only persons in fear of their lives
>sending someone away in the circumstances described is simply not
>correct. "
can make complaints about harassment. That's just not the case, and is
independent of whether what happened to them was in fact legally
harassment or not.
--
Roland Perry
Robin Bignall
Nov 18, 2012, 7:25:02 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:20:02 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
We have laws that say that criminal acts are illegal, but as someone
pointed out, the prisons are full of people who took no notice.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find many cases where police have
ignored or shrugged off harassment complaints. They seem to have become
a law unto themselves, and can get away with murder. Mr de Menezes, for
one.
Here's a harassment case that the police simply ignored.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/fiona-pilkington-suicide-mother-police
http://tinyurl.com/yauktkz
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
wrote:
pointed out, the prisons are full of people who took no notice.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find many cases where police have
ignored or shrugged off harassment complaints. They seem to have become
a law unto themselves, and can get away with murder. Mr de Menezes, for
one.
Here's a harassment case that the police simply ignored.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/fiona-pilkington-suicide-mother-police
http://tinyurl.com/yauktkz
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2012, 3:20:01 AM11/19/12
to
In message <9nuia85pregdt0jpj...@4ax.com>, at 00:25:02 on
Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>Here's a harassment case that the police simply ignored.
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/fiona-pilkington-suicide-mother-police
>http://tinyurl.com/yauktkz
That's exactly the sort of case which spurred lobbyists to press for a
clarification of the Harassment law, which was eventually deemed to
require the sledgehammer approach of amending the face of the Act.
That amendment comes into force at the end of the week, and there's
currently a lot of training being aimed at police and council workers to
make sure the message doesn't get lost.
--
Roland Perry
Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>Here's a harassment case that the police simply ignored.
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/fiona-pilkington-suicide-mother-police
>http://tinyurl.com/yauktkz
clarification of the Harassment law, which was eventually deemed to
require the sledgehammer approach of amending the face of the Act.
That amendment comes into force at the end of the week, and there's
currently a lot of training being aimed at police and council workers to
make sure the message doesn't get lost.
--
Roland Perry
Robin Bignall
Nov 19, 2012, 4:00:03 PM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:20:01 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Thanks, Roland. Is there a link to somewhere that'll give us the gist
of the amendment?
wrote:
of the amendment?
Iain Archer
Nov 19, 2012, 2:45:02 PM11/19/12
to
--
Iain
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2012, 4:20:09 PM11/19/12
to
In message <OmrwGPUp...@gmail.com>, at 19:45:02 on Mon, 19 Nov
2012, Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
2012, Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>That's exactly the sort of case which spurred lobbyists to press for a
>>clarification of the Harassment law, which was eventually deemed to
>>require the sledgehammer approach of amending the face of the Act.
>>
>>That amendment comes into force at the end of the week, and there's
>>currently a lot of training being aimed at police and council workers
>>to make sure the message doesn't get lost.
>
>What is the amendment?
See the Home Office circular I linked to a few moments ago.
>>clarification of the Harassment law, which was eventually deemed to
>>require the sledgehammer approach of amending the face of the Act.
>>
>>That amendment comes into force at the end of the week, and there's
>>currently a lot of training being aimed at police and council workers
>>to make sure the message doesn't get lost.
>
>What is the amendment?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2012, 4:30:03 PM11/19/12
to
In message <ja7la8letm6gq36fv...@4ax.com>, at 21:00:03 on
strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2012/018-2012/>
--
Roland Perry
Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>>That amendment comes into force at the end of the week, and there's
>>currently a lot of training being aimed at police and council workers to
>>make sure the message doesn't get lost.
>
>Thanks, Roland. Is there a link to somewhere that'll give us the gist
>of the amendment?
<http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-publications-
>>currently a lot of training being aimed at police and council workers to
>>make sure the message doesn't get lost.
>
>Thanks, Roland. Is there a link to somewhere that'll give us the gist
>of the amendment?
strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2012/018-2012/>
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2012, 4:35:02 PM11/19/12
to
In message <u9AiNl5F...@perry.co.uk>, at 21:20:09 on Mon, 19 Nov
2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>See the Home Office circular I linked to a few moments ago.
Which seems to have disappeared... reposted... cross your fingers!
--
Roland Perry
2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>See the Home Office circular I linked to a few moments ago.
--
Roland Perry
Zapp Brannigan
Nov 19, 2012, 7:00:06 PM11/19/12
to
news:lU6wnHPs...@perry.co.uk...
Really? I work in that general field, and I've heard nothing about the
amendment. It appears to be little more than tinkering to create a new
specific crime of 'stalking', a form of behaviour which was already quite
adequately addressed in current legislation.
Not sure which lobbyists you're referring to, but the failure to protect
Fiona Pillkington had nothing to do with a lack of powers. It was entirely
a lack of interest. All available officers were busy investigating facebook
pictures of burning poppies, I suppose.
amendment. It appears to be little more than tinkering to create a new
specific crime of 'stalking', a form of behaviour which was already quite
adequately addressed in current legislation.
Not sure which lobbyists you're referring to, but the failure to protect
Fiona Pillkington had nothing to do with a lack of powers. It was entirely
a lack of interest. All available officers were busy investigating facebook
pictures of burning poppies, I suppose.
Robin Bignall
Nov 19, 2012, 8:30:05 PM11/19/12
to
Roland Perry
Nov 20, 2012, 3:20:02 AM11/20/12
to
In message <k8eguc$2r7$1...@dont-email.me>, at 00:00:06 on Tue, 20 Nov
2012, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
very close to its introduction. There was supposed to be a piece abut it
on R4 "World Tonight" last night, but I didn't stay up to listen.
>It appears to be little more than tinkering to create a new specific
>crime of 'stalking',
There's also the "change in day today activities" aspect, as well as the
new ability of officers to search premises associated with s2 offenders,
to gather evidence (It comes as a surprise to many that they didn't have
that power previously).
>a form of behaviour which was already quite adequately addressed in
>current legislation.
You might think that, but the police were not convinced, especially
about s2 offences. There came a point when their inaction needed
addressing.
>Not sure which lobbyists you're referring to
From various charities like Protection against Stalking and Suzy
Lamplugh. The campaign culminated in a visit to Downing St on
International Womens Day, which was widely reported.
>, but the failure to protect Fiona Pillkington had nothing to do with a
>lack of powers. It was entirely a lack of interest.
The police have never been very interested in "domestics", but quite a
bit of progress had been made in that area. Stalking is the new DV!
>All available officers were busy investigating facebook pictures of
>burning poppies, I suppose.
It is unfortunate that there's a perception they are spending much time
engaged in that sort of activity, because it raises false expectations
amongst run of the mill victims.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
>>>Here's a harassment case that the police simply ignored.
>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/fiona-pilkington-suicide-mother-police
>>>http://tinyurl.com/yauktkz
>>
>> That's exactly the sort of case which spurred lobbyists to press for
>>a clarification of the Harassment law, which was eventually deemed to
>>require the sledgehammer approach of amending the face of the Act.
>>
>> That amendment comes into force at the end of the week, and there's
>>currently a lot of training being aimed at police and council workers
>>to make sure the message doesn't get lost.
>
>Really? I work in that general field, and I've heard nothing about
>the amendment.
That's a pity. Although a lot of new law only seems to get publicity
>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/fiona-pilkington-suicide-mother-police
>>>http://tinyurl.com/yauktkz
>>
>> That's exactly the sort of case which spurred lobbyists to press for
>>a clarification of the Harassment law, which was eventually deemed to
>>require the sledgehammer approach of amending the face of the Act.
>>
>> That amendment comes into force at the end of the week, and there's
>>currently a lot of training being aimed at police and council workers
>>to make sure the message doesn't get lost.
>
>Really? I work in that general field, and I've heard nothing about
>the amendment.
very close to its introduction. There was supposed to be a piece abut it
on R4 "World Tonight" last night, but I didn't stay up to listen.
>It appears to be little more than tinkering to create a new specific
>crime of 'stalking',
new ability of officers to search premises associated with s2 offenders,
to gather evidence (It comes as a surprise to many that they didn't have
that power previously).
>a form of behaviour which was already quite adequately addressed in
>current legislation.
about s2 offences. There came a point when their inaction needed
addressing.
>Not sure which lobbyists you're referring to
Lamplugh. The campaign culminated in a visit to Downing St on
International Womens Day, which was widely reported.
>, but the failure to protect Fiona Pillkington had nothing to do with a
>lack of powers. It was entirely a lack of interest.
bit of progress had been made in that area. Stalking is the new DV!
>All available officers were busy investigating facebook pictures of
>burning poppies, I suppose.
engaged in that sort of activity, because it raises false expectations
amongst run of the mill victims.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 22, 2012, 4:35:02 AM11/22/12
to
In message <tqxSYJCB...@perry.co.uk>, at 08:20:02 on Tue, 20 Nov
2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>a lot of new law only seems to get publicity very close to its
>introduction. There was supposed to be a piece abut it on R4 "World
>Tonight" last night, but I didn't stay up to listen.
Something on "Daybreak" today, and it's being covered by both Womans
Hour and on Sky TV tomorrow (film crew expected here later today).
Recent case study in the news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20429193
which is also subject of a documentary tonight:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/living-with-my-stalker
--
Roland Perry
2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>a lot of new law only seems to get publicity very close to its
>introduction. There was supposed to be a piece abut it on R4 "World
>Tonight" last night, but I didn't stay up to listen.
Hour and on Sky TV tomorrow (film crew expected here later today).
Recent case study in the news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20429193
which is also subject of a documentary tonight:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/living-with-my-stalker
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 24, 2012, 5:20:02 AM11/24/12
to
New stalking law is being covered in several newspapers and TV over the
weekend. eg:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/relief-on-hand-for-victims-
of-stalking-as-law-is-beefed-up-8347570.html>
[Last two paragraphs are a quote from my wife].
--
Roland Perry
weekend. eg:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/relief-on-hand-for-victims-
of-stalking-as-law-is-beefed-up-8347570.html>
[Last two paragraphs are a quote from my wife].
--
Roland Perry
Max Demian
Nov 24, 2012, 7:15:02 AM11/24/12
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 10:20:02 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Since the article doesn't give the "clear definition of what stalking
is" I don't see how we can comment without extra information.
--
Max Demian
wrote:
is" I don't see how we can comment without extra information.
--
Max Demian
Roland Perry
Nov 24, 2012, 9:30:03 AM11/24/12
to
In message <1de1b8l2nntb7i0ha...@4ax.com>, at 12:15:02 on
Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> remarked:
Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> remarked:
>>New stalking law is being covered in several newspapers and TV over the
>>weekend. eg:
>>
>><http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/relief-on-hand-for-victims-
>>of-stalking-as-law-is-beefed-up-8347570.html>
>>
>>[Last two paragraphs are a quote from my wife].
>
>Since the article doesn't give the "clear definition of what stalking
>is" I don't see how we can comment without extra information.
See the Home Office Circular (paras 14 & 24 especially):
>>weekend. eg:
>>
>><http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/relief-on-hand-for-victims-
>>of-stalking-as-law-is-beefed-up-8347570.html>
>>
>>[Last two paragraphs are a quote from my wife].
>
>Since the article doesn't give the "clear definition of what stalking
>is" I don't see how we can comment without extra information.
Max Demian
Nov 24, 2012, 2:20:01 PM11/24/12
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:30:03 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Well most of the activities in the first paragraph are normal
behaviour.
Those in the second may indicate paranoia in the 'victim'.
Another attempt by the government to micro-manage our day to day
lives.
--
Max Demian
wrote:
behaviour.
Those in the second may indicate paranoia in the 'victim'.
Another attempt by the government to micro-manage our day to day
lives.
--
Max Demian
Roland Perry
Nov 25, 2012, 3:15:05 AM11/25/12
to
In message <i672b8911vd3m2lj8...@4ax.com>, at 19:20:01 on
repeatedly, in such a way as to cause distress.
--
Roland Perry
>><http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-publications-
>>strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2012/018-2012/>
>
>Well most of the activities in the first paragraph are normal
>behaviour.
I'm not sure I'd call all of them "normal", but they have to be done
>>strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2012/018-2012/>
>
>Well most of the activities in the first paragraph are normal
>behaviour.
repeatedly, in such a way as to cause distress.
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages