Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A false accusation of harassment
625 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Goodge
May 20, 2014, 1:52:39 PM5/20/14
to
While browsing the news yesterday, I spotted an interesting case of a false
accusation of harassment, which resulted in a "harassment warning" letter
being sent to the alleged harasser (who, in reality was nothing of the
sort).
In some respects, it fits the pattern previously mentioned by Roland, where
a false accusation of harassment is made by the real perpetrator of an
offence in order to attempt to deflect attention from their own activities.
But, in this case, it's far from a typical "domestic" dispute.
Instead, the accuser was a con artist (later convicted of her crimes), and
the recipient of the harassment warning was a journalist who was
investigating her. Here, for example, is how The Times (which is where I
first saw the story) reported it:
Neelam Desai, 33, admitted to a string of frauds totalling more than
�230,000, including setting up a bogus travel agency as part of a �Ponzi�
scheme which left one victim more than �150,000 out of pocket.
She was also suspected of setting up a fake dating website which was
being investigated by Gareth Davies, 29, a senior reporter with the
Croydon Advertiser.
Desai complained to the Metropolitan Police when he contacted her and the
newspaper was visited by three uniformed officers who handed Mr Davies a
warning letter alleging harassment.
Crucially, though, as the report goes on to say even when it became clear
that Davies had done nothing wrong, the police refused to withdraw the
letter:
Despite repeated attempts by Mr Davies, the force has refused to rescind
the warning. Mr Davies said yesterday that he would complain to the
Independent Police Complaints Commission.
If you don't have a Times subscription you won't be able to read that
online, but it has been covered by other newspapers. Here are a couple of
links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10841349/Conwoman-who-used-the-police-to-warn-off-a-journalist-is-jailed.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2633379/Conwoman-230-000-fraud-used-police-try-protect-press-exposure-jailed-30-months.html
The Daily Mail report is worth looking at, as it includes extracts of the
letter itself. Meanwhile, The Guardian has a different take on it:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/04/newspaper-challenges-metropolitan-police-harassment-warning-croydon-advertiser
It seems to me that this demonstrates one of the biggest flaws with the
legislation. Because a "prevention of harassment" letter isn't considered a
sanction or a criminal record, unlike a caution or a Fixed Penalty Notice,
there is no mechanism for appealing against it or any way to refuse to
accept it. But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
check, meaning that it may affect a recipient's later employmwent
prospects.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
accusation of harassment, which resulted in a "harassment warning" letter
being sent to the alleged harasser (who, in reality was nothing of the
sort).
In some respects, it fits the pattern previously mentioned by Roland, where
a false accusation of harassment is made by the real perpetrator of an
offence in order to attempt to deflect attention from their own activities.
But, in this case, it's far from a typical "domestic" dispute.
Instead, the accuser was a con artist (later convicted of her crimes), and
the recipient of the harassment warning was a journalist who was
investigating her. Here, for example, is how The Times (which is where I
first saw the story) reported it:
Neelam Desai, 33, admitted to a string of frauds totalling more than
�230,000, including setting up a bogus travel agency as part of a �Ponzi�
scheme which left one victim more than �150,000 out of pocket.
She was also suspected of setting up a fake dating website which was
being investigated by Gareth Davies, 29, a senior reporter with the
Croydon Advertiser.
Desai complained to the Metropolitan Police when he contacted her and the
newspaper was visited by three uniformed officers who handed Mr Davies a
warning letter alleging harassment.
Crucially, though, as the report goes on to say even when it became clear
that Davies had done nothing wrong, the police refused to withdraw the
letter:
Despite repeated attempts by Mr Davies, the force has refused to rescind
the warning. Mr Davies said yesterday that he would complain to the
Independent Police Complaints Commission.
If you don't have a Times subscription you won't be able to read that
online, but it has been covered by other newspapers. Here are a couple of
links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10841349/Conwoman-who-used-the-police-to-warn-off-a-journalist-is-jailed.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2633379/Conwoman-230-000-fraud-used-police-try-protect-press-exposure-jailed-30-months.html
The Daily Mail report is worth looking at, as it includes extracts of the
letter itself. Meanwhile, The Guardian has a different take on it:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/04/newspaper-challenges-metropolitan-police-harassment-warning-croydon-advertiser
It seems to me that this demonstrates one of the biggest flaws with the
legislation. Because a "prevention of harassment" letter isn't considered a
sanction or a criminal record, unlike a caution or a Fixed Penalty Notice,
there is no mechanism for appealing against it or any way to refuse to
accept it. But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
check, meaning that it may affect a recipient's later employmwent
prospects.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Roland Perry
May 20, 2014, 4:16:39 PM5/20/14
to
In message <ts0nn95s0bp6gurt2...@news.markshouse.net>, at
18:52:39 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
cites, and how they stress how the document should be properly explained
to all concerned).
One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
never get anywhere.
>isn't considered a sanction or a criminal record, unlike a caution or a
>Fixed Penalty Notice,
Not just "shouldn't be considered", it isn't. The PIN quoted on the
Daily Mail site is correct in saying it can only be used in a later
prosecution for harassment (to defeat a defence of "I didn't realise
what I did could be harassment"). And they should only be issued after a
single occurrence.
But the PIN in question mentions more than one occurrence, which is no
doubt a conundrum that, in this specific case, will one day be sorted
out.
>there is no mechanism for appealing against it or any way to refuse to
>accept it.
Just like there's no way to appeal against, or refuse, a "producer" for
your insurance if stopped by the police.
>But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>check,
No it doesn't.
>meaning that it may affect a recipient's later employmwent prospects.
Not as a result of seeing a criminal record check.
--
Roland Perry
18:52:39 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>It seems to me that this demonstrates one of the biggest flaws with the
>legislation.
A PIN is not "part of the legislation". It's completely outside of the
>legislation.
legislation.
>Because a "prevention of harassment" letter
There's no such thing. The only document involved is a PIN (see previous
>Because a "prevention of harassment" letter
cites, and how they stress how the document should be properly explained
to all concerned).
One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
never get anywhere.
>isn't considered a sanction or a criminal record, unlike a caution or a
>Fixed Penalty Notice,
Daily Mail site is correct in saying it can only be used in a later
prosecution for harassment (to defeat a defence of "I didn't realise
what I did could be harassment"). And they should only be issued after a
single occurrence.
But the PIN in question mentions more than one occurrence, which is no
doubt a conundrum that, in this specific case, will one day be sorted
out.
>there is no mechanism for appealing against it or any way to refuse to
>accept it.
your insurance if stopped by the police.
>But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>check,
>meaning that it may affect a recipient's later employmwent prospects.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
May 20, 2014, 4:54:18 PM5/20/14
to
On Tue, 20 May 2014 21:16:39 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <ts0nn95s0bp6gurt2...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>18:52:39 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>It seems to me that this demonstrates one of the biggest flaws with the
>>legislation.
>
>A PIN is not "part of the legislation". It's completely outside of the
>legislation.
Then on what authority do the police issue them?
>>Because a "prevention of harassment" letter
>
>There's no such thing. The only document involved is a PIN (see previous
>cites, and how they stress how the document should be properly explained
>to all concerned).
Where is this documented?
>One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
>never get anywhere.
You mean like...
>Just like there's no way to appeal against, or refuse, a "producer" for
>your insurance if stopped by the police.
I'm sure it's not really called a "producer". But it's a handy shorthand.
Anyway, though, this is different, because a producer is requiring you to
do something youy are legally obliged to do. A harassment warning is not
enforcing any such requirement.
Meanwhile, the Met call it a "Prevention of Harassment Letter". See also
here:
http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/51331-form-9993-prevention-of-harassment-letter/
The template available at this link uses both terms:
http://www.nelsonelton.webspace.virginmedia.com/support/PIN.doc
(Incidentally, there's a couple of absolutely top class examples of begging
the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
person to spot them).
>>But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>>check,
>
>No it doesn't.
I am informed by a lawyer that it does. In this case, I trust the
professional advice more than that of a layman. Unless you can provide an
authoritative source which states otherwise.
[1] In the original sense.
typed:
>In message <ts0nn95s0bp6gurt2...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>18:52:39 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>It seems to me that this demonstrates one of the biggest flaws with the
>>legislation.
>
>A PIN is not "part of the legislation". It's completely outside of the
>legislation.
>>Because a "prevention of harassment" letter
>
>There's no such thing. The only document involved is a PIN (see previous
>cites, and how they stress how the document should be properly explained
>to all concerned).
>One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
>never get anywhere.
>Just like there's no way to appeal against, or refuse, a "producer" for
>your insurance if stopped by the police.
Anyway, though, this is different, because a producer is requiring you to
do something youy are legally obliged to do. A harassment warning is not
enforcing any such requirement.
Meanwhile, the Met call it a "Prevention of Harassment Letter". See also
here:
http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/51331-form-9993-prevention-of-harassment-letter/
The template available at this link uses both terms:
http://www.nelsonelton.webspace.virginmedia.com/support/PIN.doc
(Incidentally, there's a couple of absolutely top class examples of begging
the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
person to spot them).
>>But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>>check,
>
>No it doesn't.
professional advice more than that of a layman. Unless you can provide an
authoritative source which states otherwise.
[1] In the original sense.
Percy Picacity
May 20, 2014, 5:01:41 PM5/20/14
to
CRB checks is that police seem to have absolute discretion in what to
include. If they choose to include a harassment warning (even if
because they are one of many who misunderstand why this is not the
correct name) and demand that this be withheld from the the subject of
the check, then he will not even know about it, let alone being allowed
to appeal against its disclosure. Which would be too late for that job
anyway.
>
>> meaning that it may affect a recipient's later employmwent prospects.
>
> Not as a result of seeing a criminal record check.
probably not accept your assurance. I do not doubt your sincerity.
--
Percy Picacity
Zapp Brannigan
May 20, 2014, 5:02:28 PM5/20/14
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qCMTCSDn...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <ts0nn95s0bp6gurt2...@news.markshouse.net>, at
> 18:52:39 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
> 18:52:39 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
>>But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>>check,
>
> No it doesn't.
Harassment warnings certainly can be disclosed under enhanced DBS checks,
>>check,
>
> No it doesn't.
and I am aware of instances where that has occurred.
The absence of any process where recipients of these accusations can appeal
or challenge to a court is in my view likely to be contrary to Article 6.
Accused persons are labeled as perpetrators of harassment without any
opportunity to defend themselves.
It is simply indefensible, and I hope that the Croydon Advertiser case
forces a change. Quoted in the Guardian article - James Welch, legal
director for Liberty, said: "All too often the police seem to hand out
harassment notices without adequate investigation or consideration of the
validity of complaints"
Robin
May 20, 2014, 5:46:49 PM5/20/14
to
>> Because a "prevention of harassment" letter
>
> There's no such thing. The only document involved is a PIN (see
> previous cites, and how they stress how the document should be
> properly explained to all concerned).
>
> One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
> never get anywhere.
Who has dictated that there is a "proper name" for a non-statutory
>
> There's no such thing. The only document involved is a PIN (see
> previous cites, and how they stress how the document should be
> properly explained to all concerned).
>
> One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
> never get anywhere.
communication please, and when? As of 2013 the Met were still issuing a
"prevention of harassment" letter (Form 9993). Copies of the form are
on the net.
>> But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>> check,
>
> No it doesn't.
(NACRO still think it is.)
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Roland Perry
May 21, 2014, 1:25:36 AM5/21/14
to
In message <7hd5cg....@news.alt.net>, at 22:01:41 on Tue, 20 May
2014, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>>> meaning that it may affect a recipient's later employmwent prospects.
>>
>> Not as a result of seeing a criminal record check.
>
>Please convince me by references if you are able; otherwise I will
>probably not accept your assurance. I do not doubt your sincerity.
...including and written policies on the matter.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>>> But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>>> check,
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>One of the most sinister aspects of the legislation setting up enhanced
>CRB checks is that police seem to have absolute discretion in what to
>include. If they choose to include a harassment warning (even if
>because they are one of many who misunderstand why this is not the
>correct name) and demand that this be withheld from the the subject of
>the check, then he will not even know about it, let alone being allowed
>to appeal against its disclosure. Which would be too late for that job
>anyway.
I will see what I can find out...
>>> check,
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>One of the most sinister aspects of the legislation setting up enhanced
>CRB checks is that police seem to have absolute discretion in what to
>include. If they choose to include a harassment warning (even if
>because they are one of many who misunderstand why this is not the
>correct name) and demand that this be withheld from the the subject of
>the check, then he will not even know about it, let alone being allowed
>to appeal against its disclosure. Which would be too late for that job
>anyway.
>>> meaning that it may affect a recipient's later employmwent prospects.
>>
>> Not as a result of seeing a criminal record check.
>
>Please convince me by references if you are able; otherwise I will
>probably not accept your assurance. I do not doubt your sincerity.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
May 21, 2014, 1:34:53 AM5/21/14
to
> Meanwhile, the Met call it a "Prevention of Harassment Letter". See
> also here:
>
Sorry, I did not see that you had already referenced the Met's Form 9993
> also here:
>
before I posted last night. That'll teach me to make an excepion to the
general rule "read the whole thread first".
Roland Perry
May 21, 2014, 1:39:39 AM5/21/14
to
In message <llgghi$tf1$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:02:28 on Tue, 20 May
2014, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
>Quoted in the Guardian article - James Welch, legal director for
>Liberty, said: "All too often the police seem to hand out harassment
>notices without adequate investigation or consideration of the validity
>of complaints"
To be fair to the police in general case, there's a bit of a catch22
because you can't prove harassment until it's happened twice, and the
PIN *should* only be issued after one instance.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Zapp Brannigan <ZBr...@DOOP.com> remarked:
>I hope that the Croydon Advertiser case forces a change.
So do I.
>Quoted in the Guardian article - James Welch, legal director for
>Liberty, said: "All too often the police seem to hand out harassment
>notices without adequate investigation or consideration of the validity
>of complaints"
because you can't prove harassment until it's happened twice, and the
PIN *should* only be issued after one instance.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 21, 2014, 1:36:43 AM5/21/14
to
In message <vdfnn9hfrk0ad509n...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:54:18 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
>>>Because a "prevention of harassment" letter
>>
>>There's no such thing. The only document involved is a PIN (see previous
>>cites, and how they stress how the document should be properly explained
>>to all concerned).
>
>Where is this documented?
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2009/200908CRISAH01.pdf
The area around p70 is of special relevance.
>>One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>You mean like...
>
>>Just like there's no way to appeal against, or refuse, a "producer" for
>>your insurance if stopped by the police.
>
>I'm sure it's not really called a "producer". But it's a handy shorthand.
>
>Anyway, though, this is different, because a producer is requiring you to
>do something youy are legally obliged to do. A harassment warning is not
>enforcing any such requirement.
>
>Meanwhile, the Met call it a "Prevention of Harassment Letter". See also
>here:
>
>http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/51331-form-9993-prevention-of-harassment-letter/
That unofficial forum seems to agree broadly with my point of view
(especially that PIN is the correct name).
>The template available at this link uses both terms:
>
>http://www.nelsonelton.webspace.virginmedia.com/support/PIN.doc
It doesn't, actually. It's quite clearly only called a PIN. And note
especially the underlined part.
>(Incidentally, there's a couple of absolutely top class examples of begging
>the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
>person to spot them).
I expect you mean the italicised "if".
>>>But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>>>check,
>>
>>No it doesn't.
>
>I am informed by a lawyer that it does. In this case, I trust the
>professional advice more than that of a layman. Unless you can provide an
>authoritative source which states otherwise.
I'm looking into that.
--
Roland Perry
21:54:18 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>It seems to me that this demonstrates one of the biggest flaws with the
>>>legislation.
>>
>>A PIN is not "part of the legislation". It's completely outside of the
>>legislation.
>
>Then on what authority do the police issue them?
See the ACPO/NPIA document below.
>>>It seems to me that this demonstrates one of the biggest flaws with the
>>>legislation.
>>
>>A PIN is not "part of the legislation". It's completely outside of the
>>legislation.
>
>Then on what authority do the police issue them?
>>>Because a "prevention of harassment" letter
>>
>>There's no such thing. The only document involved is a PIN (see previous
>>cites, and how they stress how the document should be properly explained
>>to all concerned).
>
>Where is this documented?
The area around p70 is of special relevance.
>>One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
>>never get anywhere.
>
>You mean like...
>
>>Just like there's no way to appeal against, or refuse, a "producer" for
>>your insurance if stopped by the police.
>
>I'm sure it's not really called a "producer". But it's a handy shorthand.
>
>Anyway, though, this is different, because a producer is requiring you to
>do something youy are legally obliged to do. A harassment warning is not
>enforcing any such requirement.
>
>Meanwhile, the Met call it a "Prevention of Harassment Letter". See also
>here:
>
>http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?/topic/51331-form-9993-prevention-of-harassment-letter/
(especially that PIN is the correct name).
>The template available at this link uses both terms:
>
>http://www.nelsonelton.webspace.virginmedia.com/support/PIN.doc
especially the underlined part.
>(Incidentally, there's a couple of absolutely top class examples of begging
>the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
>person to spot them).
>>>But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>>>check,
>>
>>No it doesn't.
>
>I am informed by a lawyer that it does. In this case, I trust the
>professional advice more than that of a layman. Unless you can provide an
>authoritative source which states otherwise.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 21, 2014, 1:44:36 AM5/21/14
to
In message <llgiev$c7l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:46:49 on Tue, 20 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
Whatever one's views[1] on PINs, they should be given a consistent name.
[1] I think that a properly issued PIN saying "you may not realise the
following would be an offence if repeated" is probably a good thing; but
only if the issuing rules are strictly followed.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
>> never get anywhere.
>
>Who has dictated that there is a "proper name" for a non-statutory
>communication please, and when?
ACPO/NPIA (see cite posted a few moments ago).
>> never get anywhere.
>
>Who has dictated that there is a "proper name" for a non-statutory
>communication please, and when?
Whatever one's views[1] on PINs, they should be given a consistent name.
[1] I think that a properly issued PIN saying "you may not realise the
following would be an offence if repeated" is probably a good thing; but
only if the issuing rules are strictly followed.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
May 21, 2014, 3:11:12 AM5/21/14
to
> Whatever one's views[1] on PINs, they should be given a consistent
> name.
Thank you for the link. I trust you'll be telling the Met in forthright
> name.
terms then to change their terminology :)
That was however the 2009 guidance. It is now nearly 2 years since
the government promised to review the guidance in response to concerns:
"The Home Office will work with ACPO to review guidance for the police
on the issuing of PINs as part of updating wider stalking and harassment
guidance (links to Action 61 from VAWG Action Plan)"[1]
It would be nice to know if that came to anything. Or if the guidance
is to be revised at all in the light of eg the CA judgment on Ms T.
That was a judicial review of the issue of a warning letter[3] in which
the CA heard the policy was to keep the record on CRIS for 12 years.
The Met caved on that - possibly for fear of a ruling they wouldn't
like. From para. 61:
"There is an obvious justification for retaining a copy of the letter
for a limited period, because it may help to identify a course of
conduct amounting to harassment and may be useful in providing evidence
that the suspect was aware of the nature and consequences of his
actions. However, since harassment requires a course of conduct, it is
difficult to see how the retention of the letter or the CRIS report for
a period of more than a year or so at the most could possibly be of any
assistance in connection with a prosecution for that offence.
............................It is telling, in our view, that having
looked again at the materials for the purposes of this appeal some two
and a half years after the event, the respondent is content for the
record to be expunged on the grounds that "there have been no ongoing
concerns regarding risk and there are no reports of any further
incidents". In our view this makes it only too clear that the continued
retention of the information would have been unnecessary,
disproportionate and unjustifiable. In those circumstances it is
unnecessary to consider whether the collection, processing and retention
of the information was in accordance with the law."
[1] Home Office, Review of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997:
Improving Protection for Victims of Stalking: Summary Of Consultation
Responses And Conclusions, 24 July 2012
[2] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/192.html
[3] I'll use the term used by the CA in this context
Mark Goodge
May 21, 2014, 3:12:00 AM5/21/14
to
On Wed, 21 May 2014 06:44:36 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <llgiev$c7l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:46:49 on Tue, 20 May
>2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
>>> never get anywhere.
>>
>>Who has dictated that there is a "proper name" for a non-statutory
>>communication please, and when?
>
>ACPO/NPIA (see cite posted a few moments ago).
>
>Whatever one's views[1] on PINs, they should be given a consistent name.
For most people "PIN" means the number they use with their credit or debit
card to make purchases and get money from an ATM. And "Police Information
Notice" sounds like one pf those blue signs that the police put out when
they want to close a road in the case of an accident, or similar.
I don't think it's at all helpful to refer to a formal document by a
non-intuitive name, orn ambiguous and even less intuitive acronym. The
document we are talking about here is a letter sent by the police following
an allegation of harassment; calling it an "allegation od harassment
letter" or a "harassment warning letter" is both unambiguous and clearly
reflects its actual purpose. I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the motives
of anyone who wishes to obscure its purpose by insisting on a non-intuitive
assumes that harassing activities have taken place, and warns the recipient
of the letter that they may be an offence if they were to "continue". The
possibility that the actions alleged never took place is not given credence
by the letter.
I also note that, were I to be a recipient of one of those letters, I could
not honestly sign it as to do so would be to knowingly put my signature to
a false statement. That could be changed by just a small alteration of the
wording in red, but, again, the wording which is currently there makes
implications against the recipient which are not justified by the
ostensible purpose of the letter,
typed:
>In message <llgiev$c7l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:46:49 on Tue, 20 May
>2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> One thing's for sure, if we don't call stuff by its proper name, we'll
>>> never get anywhere.
>>
>>Who has dictated that there is a "proper name" for a non-statutory
>>communication please, and when?
>
>ACPO/NPIA (see cite posted a few moments ago).
>
>Whatever one's views[1] on PINs, they should be given a consistent name.
card to make purchases and get money from an ATM. And "Police Information
Notice" sounds like one pf those blue signs that the police put out when
they want to close a road in the case of an accident, or similar.
I don't think it's at all helpful to refer to a formal document by a
non-intuitive name, orn ambiguous and even less intuitive acronym. The
document we are talking about here is a letter sent by the police following
an allegation of harassment; calling it an "allegation od harassment
letter" or a "harassment warning letter" is both unambiguous and clearly
reflects its actual purpose. I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the motives
of anyone who wishes to obscure its purpose by insisting on a non-intuitive
name.
>[1] I think that a properly issued PIN saying "you may not realise the
>following would be an offence if repeated" is probably a good thing; but
>only if the issuing rules are strictly followed.
Or even "would be an offence if it has actually occured". The sample letter
>[1] I think that a properly issued PIN saying "you may not realise the
>following would be an offence if repeated" is probably a good thing; but
>only if the issuing rules are strictly followed.
assumes that harassing activities have taken place, and warns the recipient
of the letter that they may be an offence if they were to "continue". The
possibility that the actions alleged never took place is not given credence
by the letter.
I also note that, were I to be a recipient of one of those letters, I could
not honestly sign it as to do so would be to knowingly put my signature to
a false statement. That could be changed by just a small alteration of the
wording in red, but, again, the wording which is currently there makes
implications against the recipient which are not justified by the
ostensible purpose of the letter,
Robin
May 21, 2014, 3:19:48 AM5/21/14
to
> I don't think it's at all helpful to refer to a formal document by a
> non-intuitive name, orn ambiguous and even less intuitive acronym. The
> document we are talking about here is a letter sent by the police
> following an allegation of harassment; calling it an "allegation od
> harassment letter" or a "harassment warning letter" is both
> unambiguous and clearly reflects its actual purpose. I am deeply,
> deeply suspicious of the motives of anyone who wishes to obscure its
> purpose by insisting on a non-intuitive name.
>
The CA comment on this may be of interest if you have not seen it -
> non-intuitive name, orn ambiguous and even less intuitive acronym. The
> document we are talking about here is a letter sent by the police
> following an allegation of harassment; calling it an "allegation od
> harassment letter" or a "harassment warning letter" is both
> unambiguous and clearly reflects its actual purpose. I am deeply,
> deeply suspicious of the motives of anyone who wishes to obscure its
> purpose by insisting on a non-intuitive name.
>
especially the bit in parentheses:
56.. Notwithstanding the suggestion in the Practice Advice that the
use of the word "warning" should be avoided in police notification
letters, (a suggestion carefully followed in this case), the fact is
that the tone and content of the letter are unmistakably those of a
warning. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that one can find many
references to a letter of this kind as a "warning" letter. Similarly, it
is referred to in the CRIS report as a "FIHW" - i.e. a first instance
harassment warning. This has certain adverse consequences for Ms T. One
is that a person reading the letter and the CRIS report would naturally
conclude that the police thought there was some truth in the allegation,
since, if they did not, they would simply have recorded the fact of the
allegation without taking any further action. (The judge did not accept
that service of the letter carried the implication that the police have
given credence to the allegation, but on this question we respectfully
disagree with him.) Another is that information of this kind, clearly
falling well short of a conviction, might be disclosed in response to a
request for an enhanced criminal record certificate (although it is fair
to say that there appears to have been no instance yet in which that has
occurred). However, even putting that possibility aside, in the light of
the authorities to which we have referred, in particular Wood and S, we
think that the letter and the CRIS report contained information of a
personal kind, the systematic processing and retention of which will
involve an unlawful interference with the right to respect for private
life unless it can be justified. Moreover, even if the information is
properly to be regarded as public in nature, it is of a kind which the
subject can reasonably expect to be forgotten about over the course of
time and so enter the sphere of private life: see L, per Lord Hope,
paragraph [27]. In our view, therefore, the judge was right to hold that
article 8 was engaged.
Big Les Wade
May 21, 2014, 5:45:49 AM5/21/14
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted
otherwise) if the intended recipient simply refuses to sign, without
giving a reason?
--
Les
>I also note that, were I to be a recipient of one of those letters, I
>could not honestly sign it as to do so would be to knowingly put my
>signature to a false statement. That could be changed by just a small
>alteration of the wording in red, but, again, the wording which is
>currently there makes implications against the recipient which are not
>justified by the ostensible purpose of the letter,
In any case, what might the issuing officer be able to do (lawfully or
>could not honestly sign it as to do so would be to knowingly put my
>signature to a false statement. That could be changed by just a small
>alteration of the wording in red, but, again, the wording which is
>currently there makes implications against the recipient which are not
>justified by the ostensible purpose of the letter,
otherwise) if the intended recipient simply refuses to sign, without
giving a reason?
--
Les
Phi
May 21, 2014, 8:58:09 AM5/21/14
to
Would it be classed as harassment to privately issue the PIN notice to an
individual ?
individual ?
Mark Goodge
May 21, 2014, 3:09:57 PM5/21/14
to
On Wed, 21 May 2014 06:36:43 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <vdfnn9hfrk0ad509n...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>21:54:18 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>
of Harassment Letter".
Googling for "Harassment warning letter" and "prevention of harassment
letter" both return thousands of results, many of them on official websites
of various police forces. Whatever the official name, it seems clear that
most of those involved in working with the document are happy to use the
more colloquial names.
>>(Incidentally, there's a couple of absolutely top class examples of begging
>>the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
>>person to spot them).
>
>I expect you mean the italicised "if".
No, I mean the far more obvious ones than that.
typed:
>In message <vdfnn9hfrk0ad509n...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>21:54:18 on Tue, 20 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>The template available at this link uses both terms:
>>
>>http://www.nelsonelton.webspace.virginmedia.com/support/PIN.doc
>
>It doesn't, actually. It's quite clearly only called a PIN. And note
>especially the underlined part.
Read all of it. In the box at the bottom right it's called an "Allegation
>>
>>http://www.nelsonelton.webspace.virginmedia.com/support/PIN.doc
>
>It doesn't, actually. It's quite clearly only called a PIN. And note
>especially the underlined part.
of Harassment Letter".
Googling for "Harassment warning letter" and "prevention of harassment
letter" both return thousands of results, many of them on official websites
of various police forces. Whatever the official name, it seems clear that
most of those involved in working with the document are happy to use the
more colloquial names.
>>(Incidentally, there's a couple of absolutely top class examples of begging
>>the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
>>person to spot them).
>
>I expect you mean the italicised "if".
Peter Crosland
May 21, 2014, 5:01:59 PM5/21/14
to
seeking to make law rather than the legislature. However well
intentioned ACPO may be it seems they are effectively making law that is
not open to, or very difficult to, challenge by the accused. That cannot
be right.
--
Peter Crosland
Reply address is valid
Zapp Brannigan
May 21, 2014, 5:45:33 PM5/21/14
to
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xcadna3Tf_DaieDO...@brightview.co.uk...
> It strikes me as another example of an unaccountable and unelected body
> seeking to make law rather than the legislature. However well intentioned
> ACPO may be it seems they are effectively making law that is not open to,
> or very difficult to, challenge by the accused. That cannot be right.
<www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/192.html> who has been labeled as the
perpetrator of a hate crime, without any attempt to investigate or verify
this.
It is outrageous, and will remain so until the accused person has a right to
defend themselves in a court.
Steve Walker
May 21, 2014, 6:02:41 PM5/21/14
to
news:m7CAshGb...@perry.co.uk...
measured. As Mark has remarked, the Cheshire example is dripping with
loaded language and presumption of guilt. It is plainly intended to have a
bullying, threatening tone.
> To be fair to the police in general case, there's a bit of a catch22
> because you can't prove harassment until it's happened twice, and the PIN
> *should* only be issued after one instance.
Then the wording of their harassment warnings should be more accurate and
> because you can't prove harassment until it's happened twice, and the PIN
> *should* only be issued after one instance.
measured. As Mark has remarked, the Cheshire example is dripping with
loaded language and presumption of guilt. It is plainly intended to have a
bullying, threatening tone.
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 9:08:01 AM5/22/14
to
In message <llhjho$102$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:12 on Wed, 21 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
happen. It probably hasn't helped that the NPIA activity which produces
that kind of report gets re-organised every couple of years.
>Or if the guidance
>is to be revised at all in the light of eg the CA judgment on Ms T.
>That was a judicial review of the issue of a warning letter[3] in which
>the CA heard the policy was to keep the record on CRIS for 12 years.
>The Met caved on that - possibly for fear of a ruling they wouldn't
>like. From para. 61:
>
>"There is an obvious justification for retaining a copy of the letter
>for a limited period, because it may help to identify a course of
>conduct amounting to harassment and may be useful in providing evidence
>that the suspect was aware of the nature and consequences of his
>actions.
That hits the nail on the head precisely, regarding the intention of a
PIN.
>However, since harassment requires a course of conduct, it is
>difficult to see how the retention of the letter or the CRIS report for
>a period of more than a year or so at the most could possibly be of any
>assistance in connection with a prosecution for that offence.
Some campaigns of harassment go on for decades, but I agree they should
expire off the system within the normal turnaround for
complaint/investigation/prosecution, which might be four years. I know
that sounds slow, but these cases do often take years. See this BBC
story which emerged this week, where they've had to go back to Septmeber
2011 to find a bunch of cases, "most" of which had completed their
course: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22610534
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>"The Home Office will work with ACPO to review guidance for the police
>on the issuing of PINs as part of updating wider stalking and harassment
>guidance (links to Action 61 from VAWG Action Plan)"[1]
>
>It would be nice to know if that came to anything.
There's work going on, but I don't know if or when any changes will
>on the issuing of PINs as part of updating wider stalking and harassment
>guidance (links to Action 61 from VAWG Action Plan)"[1]
>
>It would be nice to know if that came to anything.
happen. It probably hasn't helped that the NPIA activity which produces
that kind of report gets re-organised every couple of years.
>Or if the guidance
>is to be revised at all in the light of eg the CA judgment on Ms T.
>That was a judicial review of the issue of a warning letter[3] in which
>the CA heard the policy was to keep the record on CRIS for 12 years.
>The Met caved on that - possibly for fear of a ruling they wouldn't
>like. From para. 61:
>
>"There is an obvious justification for retaining a copy of the letter
>for a limited period, because it may help to identify a course of
>conduct amounting to harassment and may be useful in providing evidence
>that the suspect was aware of the nature and consequences of his
>actions.
PIN.
>However, since harassment requires a course of conduct, it is
>difficult to see how the retention of the letter or the CRIS report for
>a period of more than a year or so at the most could possibly be of any
>assistance in connection with a prosecution for that offence.
expire off the system within the normal turnaround for
complaint/investigation/prosecution, which might be four years. I know
that sounds slow, but these cases do often take years. See this BBC
story which emerged this week, where they've had to go back to Septmeber
2011 to find a bunch of cases, "most" of which had completed their
course: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22610534
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 8:58:26 AM5/22/14
to
In message <f9jon9hbltibsh0a6...@news.markshouse.net>, at
20:09:57 on Wed, 21 May 2014, Mark Goodge
people over-thinking what the letter [a thing that goes inside an
envelope] actually represents.
I hope we here can use the correct term while discussing the legal
issues.
>>>(Incidentally, there's a couple of absolutely top class examples of begging
>>>the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
>>>person to spot them).
>>
>>I expect you mean the italicised "if".
>
>No, I mean the far more obvious ones than that.
OK, how about it being impossible for the police to have received an
allegation of a single instance of harassment, if two or more instances
are required for it to be an offence of harassment?
I think the whole PIN thing revolves around this "two instances"
dilemma. It's supposed to be sent to someone as a crime prevention
measure to stop one [alleged, obviously] instance potentially developing
into two.
And it would be more precise it if said "should the kind of behaviour
that has been alleged, had it in fact occurred, were to continue.."
But that's not going to win any plain-english awards.
--
Roland Perry
20:09:57 on Wed, 21 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>The template available at this link uses both terms:
>>>
>>>http://www.nelsonelton.webspace.virginmedia.com/support/PIN.doc
>>
>>It doesn't, actually. It's quite clearly only called a PIN. And note
>>especially the underlined part.
>
>Read all of it. In the box at the bottom right it's called an "Allegation
>of Harassment Letter".
>
>Googling for "Harassment warning letter" and "prevention of harassment
>letter" both return thousands of results, many of them on official websites
>of various police forces. Whatever the official name, it seems clear that
>most of those involved in working with the document are happy to use the
>more colloquial names.
They may be happy, but it leads to many difficulties, especially of
>>>The template available at this link uses both terms:
>>>
>>>http://www.nelsonelton.webspace.virginmedia.com/support/PIN.doc
>>
>>It doesn't, actually. It's quite clearly only called a PIN. And note
>>especially the underlined part.
>
>Read all of it. In the box at the bottom right it's called an "Allegation
>of Harassment Letter".
>
>Googling for "Harassment warning letter" and "prevention of harassment
>letter" both return thousands of results, many of them on official websites
>of various police forces. Whatever the official name, it seems clear that
>most of those involved in working with the document are happy to use the
>more colloquial names.
people over-thinking what the letter [a thing that goes inside an
envelope] actually represents.
I hope we here can use the correct term while discussing the legal
issues.
>>>(Incidentally, there's a couple of absolutely top class examples of begging
>>>the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
>>>person to spot them).
>>
>>I expect you mean the italicised "if".
>
>No, I mean the far more obvious ones than that.
allegation of a single instance of harassment, if two or more instances
are required for it to be an offence of harassment?
I think the whole PIN thing revolves around this "two instances"
dilemma. It's supposed to be sent to someone as a crime prevention
measure to stop one [alleged, obviously] instance potentially developing
into two.
And it would be more precise it if said "should the kind of behaviour
that has been alleged, had it in fact occurred, were to continue.."
But that's not going to win any plain-english awards.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 9:22:05 AM5/22/14
to
In message <0ojon9tfi8rqs0hjn...@news.markshouse.net>, at
08:12:00 on Wed, 21 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
Adobe fonts.
>I don't think it's at all helpful to refer to a formal document by a
>non-intuitive name, orn ambiguous and even less intuitive acronym. The
>document we are talking about here is a letter sent by the police following
>an allegation of harassment; calling it an "allegation od harassment
>letter" or a "harassment warning letter" is both unambiguous and clearly
>reflects its actual purpose. I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the motives
>of anyone who wishes to obscure its purpose by insisting on a non-intuitive
>name.
I take the opposite view, that using the word "warning" has undesirable
consequences when it's a false allegation, because it carries too much
additional baggage, that it doesn't need even when not a false
allegation.
Notice is short for "notification", but if the man in the street thinks
notices are a sort of thing painted[1] on a bit of metal or wood, then
should we have our time over again maybe something like "advisory" would
work better.
[1] How the public interpret "notice" in the case of a "fixed penalty
notice" for parking. Would they be expecting the police to erect a sign
in their front garden? Are they routinely referred to in conversation as
"fixed penalty letters"?
--
Roland Perry
08:12:00 on Wed, 21 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>For most people "PIN" means the number they use with their credit or debit
>card to make purchases and get money from an ATM. And "Police Information
>Notice" sounds like one pf those blue signs that the police put out when
>they want to close a road in the case of an accident, or similar.
I didn't see people queuing up at cashpoints to download new versions of
>card to make purchases and get money from an ATM. And "Police Information
>Notice" sounds like one pf those blue signs that the police put out when
>they want to close a road in the case of an accident, or similar.
Adobe fonts.
>I don't think it's at all helpful to refer to a formal document by a
>non-intuitive name, orn ambiguous and even less intuitive acronym. The
>document we are talking about here is a letter sent by the police following
>an allegation of harassment; calling it an "allegation od harassment
>letter" or a "harassment warning letter" is both unambiguous and clearly
>reflects its actual purpose. I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the motives
>of anyone who wishes to obscure its purpose by insisting on a non-intuitive
>name.
consequences when it's a false allegation, because it carries too much
additional baggage, that it doesn't need even when not a false
allegation.
Notice is short for "notification", but if the man in the street thinks
notices are a sort of thing painted[1] on a bit of metal or wood, then
should we have our time over again maybe something like "advisory" would
work better.
[1] How the public interpret "notice" in the case of a "fixed penalty
notice" for parking. Would they be expecting the police to erect a sign
in their front garden? Are they routinely referred to in conversation as
"fixed penalty letters"?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 9:37:55 AM5/22/14
to
In message <llj7q4$pfs$1...@dont-email.me>, at 23:02:41 on Wed, 21 May
2014, Steve Walker <persi...@byzantium.invalid> remarked:
albeit risking the impact they would have on genuine perpetrators, they
are quite mild compared to many official communications one receives.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Steve Walker <persi...@byzantium.invalid> remarked:
>> To be fair to the police in general case, there's a bit of a catch22
>>because you can't prove harassment until it's happened twice, and the
>>PIN *should* only be issued after one instance.
>
>Then the wording of their harassment warnings should be more accurate
>and measured. As Mark has remarked, the Cheshire example is dripping
>with loaded language and presumption of guilt. It is plainly intended
>to have a bullying, threatening tone.
While I have many suggestions on how to make them more "friendly",
>>because you can't prove harassment until it's happened twice, and the
>>PIN *should* only be issued after one instance.
>
>Then the wording of their harassment warnings should be more accurate
>and measured. As Mark has remarked, the Cheshire example is dripping
>with loaded language and presumption of guilt. It is plainly intended
>to have a bullying, threatening tone.
albeit risking the impact they would have on genuine perpetrators, they
are quite mild compared to many official communications one receives.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
May 22, 2014, 9:48:40 AM5/22/14
to
> I hope we here can use the correct term while discussing the legal
> issues.
Can we also then please be clear that the ACPO document is advice which
> issues.
does not make PIN the "correct term" in preference to, let alone to the
exclusion of, other terms?
If you are in any doubt about that I refer you to, among other things
the evidence to and reports of the Home Affairs Select Committee. They
have have been keen for the College of Policing to produce Codes which
have a clearer, statutory status.. They also reported how ACPO's status
is often misunderstood, with the Police Foundation noting that while
ACPO Guidance is not binding "it is often assumed it has legal force and
police officers are sometimes surprised to learn it is not statutory".
It would of course strike many here as odd if a document produced by a
private limited company with no additional, statutory status could
be anything more than advice in the hands of Chief Constables who are
accountable for their statutory duties. Whihc is no doubt why the Met
have been content to stick with the wording of their form (wording which
I suspect they might well argue the CA have implicity endorsed).
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 10:26:14 AM5/22/14
to
In message <llkv78$ch6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:48:40 on Thu, 22 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
example. And the Home Office regards them as PINs (while acknowledging
the colloquial use of other names):
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi
le/157898/consultation.pdf> [1]
What we need to be sure about here is that we are talking about the
"things called PINs", and some entirely different hypothetical "anti-
harassment warning" being sent out under some other regime by police
forces.
We can agree or disagree about the politics and the implementation
detail of PINs, but it does no-one (other than those seeking to muddy
the waters) to set hares running regarding the possibility in the field
of other regimes.
[1] Page 7:
Often referred to as a ‘harassment warning’ or ‘warning notice,’
a Police Information Notice or ‘PIN’ is used to inform a person
verbally and/or in writing that an allegation has been made
against him/her, allowing him/her to consider his/her future
behaviour, thereby potentially avoiding prosecution. Potential
outcomes as a result of Police issuing these non-statutory
notices are:
to ensure members of the public are aware of the requirements of
the criminal law in relation to the Protection from Harassment
Act 1997 (PHA);
to help prevent (as part of an early police intervention) the
escalation of disputes between individuals and/or further
incidents of behaviour which could amount to harassment;
to assist any future prosecution by proving that the ["alleged"
would be useful here -rp] offender knew their future conduct
could amount to harassment under the PHA;
ps I note it does on to say:
An individual’s details would not be recorded on the police
national computer purely on the basis of a PIN being issued
Which is the sort of thing that made me wonder about them turning up on
a CRB/DBS.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> I hope we here can use the correct term while discussing the legal
>> issues.
>
>Can we also then please be clear that the ACPO document is advice which
>does not make PIN the "correct term" in preference to, let alone to the
>exclusion of, other terms?
I have to disagree. The ACPO document was produced for them by NPIA, for
>> issues.
>
>Can we also then please be clear that the ACPO document is advice which
>does not make PIN the "correct term" in preference to, let alone to the
>exclusion of, other terms?
example. And the Home Office regards them as PINs (while acknowledging
the colloquial use of other names):
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi
le/157898/consultation.pdf> [1]
What we need to be sure about here is that we are talking about the
"things called PINs", and some entirely different hypothetical "anti-
harassment warning" being sent out under some other regime by police
forces.
We can agree or disagree about the politics and the implementation
detail of PINs, but it does no-one (other than those seeking to muddy
the waters) to set hares running regarding the possibility in the field
of other regimes.
[1] Page 7:
Often referred to as a ‘harassment warning’ or ‘warning notice,’
a Police Information Notice or ‘PIN’ is used to inform a person
verbally and/or in writing that an allegation has been made
against him/her, allowing him/her to consider his/her future
behaviour, thereby potentially avoiding prosecution. Potential
outcomes as a result of Police issuing these non-statutory
notices are:
to ensure members of the public are aware of the requirements of
the criminal law in relation to the Protection from Harassment
Act 1997 (PHA);
to help prevent (as part of an early police intervention) the
escalation of disputes between individuals and/or further
incidents of behaviour which could amount to harassment;
to assist any future prosecution by proving that the ["alleged"
would be useful here -rp] offender knew their future conduct
could amount to harassment under the PHA;
ps I note it does on to say:
An individual’s details would not be recorded on the police
national computer purely on the basis of a PIN being issued
Which is the sort of thing that made me wonder about them turning up on
a CRB/DBS.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 10:54:54 AM5/22/14
to
In message <OKFaQQNGkgfTFA$E...@perry.co.uk>, at 15:26:14 on Thu, 22 May
2014, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>What we need to be sure about here is that we are talking about the
>"things called PINs", and
<cough> not
>some entirely different hypothetical "anti- harassment warning" being
>sent out under some other regime by police forces.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>What we need to be sure about here is that we are talking about the
>"things called PINs", and
>some entirely different hypothetical "anti- harassment warning" being
>sent out under some other regime by police forces.
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
May 22, 2014, 1:18:59 PM5/22/14
to
trying to divert attention from the really important underlying issue.
What has happened is that, yet again, another example of an
unaccountable organisation attempting to usurp the power of the
legislature because the legislation is defective. Whilst their motives
may be perfectly well meaning it is the underlying principle that is
wrong. What has happened, and continues to happen, is that individuals
are being accused of wrong doing potentially amounting to criminal
behaviour without the authority of Parliament. Furthermore the
individuals are denied the right to have incorrect allegations removed
without having to resort to a lengthy and costly procedure. That strikes
against the very fundamental principles of English law. It cannot be
right, or reasonable, that the rights of these people be subjugated
simply because Parliament botched the legislation.
Robin
May 22, 2014, 2:01:01 PM5/22/14
to
> I have to disagree. The ACPO document was produced for them by NPIA,
> for example. And the Home Office regards them as PINs (while
> acknowledging
> the colloquial use of other names):
>
The (now abolished) NPIA did lots of things for different bodies, not
> for example. And the Home Office regards them as PINs (while
> acknowledging
> the colloquial use of other names):
>
all of which were statutory functions. I still don't see anything that
mandates the term. So I suspect the Commissioner of the Met can sleep
easily on the basis that the wording of Form 9993 is entirely
consistent with the legislation and a matter for his operational
decision.
>
> ps I note it does on to say:
>
> national computer purely on the basis of a PIN being issued
And the ACPO advice you have just held out again as authoritative
includes (among many other
exhortations on record keeping) in 1.3.4:
"Details of previous conduct, any police information notice (see 3.9
Police Information Notices) and restraining orders under the PHA (see
1.3.6 Restraining Orders) should be in the appropriate field on Police
National Computer (PNC) and other relevant records"
That is supported by the other sources (including the CA). So I suspect
the con. doc. I hope it was a cock-up. I fear it was on the basis that
the ends justify any means to dismiss concerns about false allegations
and ruined reputations.
Robin
May 22, 2014, 2:07:08 PM5/22/14
to
> The question of what the document is called is simply a red herring
> trying to divert attention from the really important underlying issue.
While I accept the thrust of your comment, I felt it was important to
> trying to divert attention from the really important underlying issue.
displace the idea that ACPO advice was anything more than just that. It
is all too often seen as "ex cathedra" decrees.
Mark Goodge
May 22, 2014, 2:50:10 PM5/22/14
to
On Thu, 22 May 2014 14:08:01 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <llhjho$102$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:12 on Wed, 21 May
>2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
years. But the point here is that two separate incidents more than a year
apart cannot reasonably be considered a course of conduct. If it does span
several years, then there also needs to be several incidents in each year.
>but I agree they should
>expire off the system within the normal turnaround for
>complaint/investigation/prosecution, which might be four years. I know
>that sounds slow, but these cases do often take years. See this BBC
>story which emerged this week, where they've had to go back to Septmeber
>2011 to find a bunch of cases, "most" of which had completed their
>course: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22610534
If the investigation leads to prosecution, or even reasonable grounds for
suspicion, then of course the relevant information should be retained as
long as necessary. What's more important here are the cases where either no
investigation is carried out, or where it is carried out but gives no
grounds to support the original allegation. In those cases, I think that
retaining the letter for more than a year would be unjustified.
typed:
>In message <llhjho$102$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:12 on Wed, 21 May
>2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>However, since harassment requires a course of conduct, it is
>>difficult to see how the retention of the letter or the CRIS report for
>>a period of more than a year or so at the most could possibly be of any
>>assistance in connection with a prosecution for that offence.
>
>Some campaigns of harassment go on for decades,
I'm sure that there are many cases where a course of conduct spans several
>>difficult to see how the retention of the letter or the CRIS report for
>>a period of more than a year or so at the most could possibly be of any
>>assistance in connection with a prosecution for that offence.
>
>Some campaigns of harassment go on for decades,
years. But the point here is that two separate incidents more than a year
apart cannot reasonably be considered a course of conduct. If it does span
several years, then there also needs to be several incidents in each year.
>but I agree they should
>expire off the system within the normal turnaround for
>complaint/investigation/prosecution, which might be four years. I know
>that sounds slow, but these cases do often take years. See this BBC
>story which emerged this week, where they've had to go back to Septmeber
>2011 to find a bunch of cases, "most" of which had completed their
>course: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22610534
suspicion, then of course the relevant information should be retained as
long as necessary. What's more important here are the cases where either no
investigation is carried out, or where it is carried out but gives no
grounds to support the original allegation. In those cases, I think that
retaining the letter for more than a year would be unjustified.
Mark Goodge
May 22, 2014, 2:44:42 PM5/22/14
to
On Thu, 22 May 2014 14:37:55 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Yes, but many people are, not unreasonably, more likely to be perturbed by
getting a letter from the police than, say, their utility supplier or HMRC.
I actually had a real life example of that the other day. My local police
wrote to me, in my capacity as a councillor, inviting me to a community
event they are planning. My wife saw a letter on my desk with the words
"West Mercia Police" emblazoned along the top and immediately assumed I'd
been done for speeding or something similar!
Most people only get a personalised, unsolicited[1] letter from the police
when they have done something wrong. So if the letter is not actually
saying that they have done something wrong, then it needs to be very clear
that this is the case.
Of course, in this particular case, many of the recipients of the letter
really will have done something wrong. So the wording has to have a touch
of steel about it, and make it clear that if the allegations are founded,
then action will follow. But that's also precisely why it needs skilful
writing, not the rather half-baked example that I've referred to earlier in
the thread.
[1] As opposed to an impersonal flyer along with the other junk mail, or a
personal letter in response to a previous communication or crime report to
the police.
typed:
getting a letter from the police than, say, their utility supplier or HMRC.
I actually had a real life example of that the other day. My local police
wrote to me, in my capacity as a councillor, inviting me to a community
event they are planning. My wife saw a letter on my desk with the words
"West Mercia Police" emblazoned along the top and immediately assumed I'd
been done for speeding or something similar!
Most people only get a personalised, unsolicited[1] letter from the police
when they have done something wrong. So if the letter is not actually
saying that they have done something wrong, then it needs to be very clear
that this is the case.
Of course, in this particular case, many of the recipients of the letter
really will have done something wrong. So the wording has to have a touch
of steel about it, and make it clear that if the allegations are founded,
then action will follow. But that's also precisely why it needs skilful
writing, not the rather half-baked example that I've referred to earlier in
the thread.
[1] As opposed to an impersonal flyer along with the other junk mail, or a
personal letter in response to a previous communication or crime report to
the police.
Mark Goodge
May 22, 2014, 2:59:57 PM5/22/14
to
On Wed, 21 May 2014 22:45:33 +0100, Zapp Brannigan put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>
The letter looked very official. It was written on Metropolitan Police
writing paper and bore the heading "Prevention of Harassment Letter" in
large bold type.
I have no idea whether the Metropolitan Police have changed the wording on
these letters since then, but this does make it clear that, at the time,
they were indeed calling them "Prevention of Harassment" letters rather
than Police Information Notices. Here's a version released by the Met in
response to an FOI reqiest:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2011/april/2011030002366.pdf
>It is outrageous, and will remain so until the accused person has a right to
>defend themselves in a court.
The argument, of course, is that PIN is not an accusation and hence has no
need of a defence. But that only holds water if it is worded in such a way
that it does not carry the implication if an accusation.
and typed:
>
>"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Xcadna3Tf_DaieDO...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>> It strikes me as another example of an unaccountable and unelected body
>> seeking to make law rather than the legislature. However well intentioned
>> ACPO may be it seems they are effectively making law that is not open to,
>> or very difficult to, challenge by the accused. That cannot be right.
>
>I agree. Eg Ms T in the cited case
><www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/192.html> who has been labeled as the
>perpetrator of a hate crime, without any attempt to investigate or verify
>this.
>From that report:
>news:Xcadna3Tf_DaieDO...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>> It strikes me as another example of an unaccountable and unelected body
>> seeking to make law rather than the legislature. However well intentioned
>> ACPO may be it seems they are effectively making law that is not open to,
>> or very difficult to, challenge by the accused. That cannot be right.
>
>I agree. Eg Ms T in the cited case
><www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/192.html> who has been labeled as the
>perpetrator of a hate crime, without any attempt to investigate or verify
>this.
The letter looked very official. It was written on Metropolitan Police
writing paper and bore the heading "Prevention of Harassment Letter" in
large bold type.
I have no idea whether the Metropolitan Police have changed the wording on
these letters since then, but this does make it clear that, at the time,
they were indeed calling them "Prevention of Harassment" letters rather
than Police Information Notices. Here's a version released by the Met in
response to an FOI reqiest:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2011/april/2011030002366.pdf
>It is outrageous, and will remain so until the accused person has a right to
>defend themselves in a court.
need of a defence. But that only holds water if it is worded in such a way
that it does not carry the implication if an accusation.
Peter Crosland
May 22, 2014, 2:25:11 PM5/22/14
to
On 22/05/2014 19:07, Robin wrote:
>> The question of what the document is called is simply a red herring
>> trying to divert attention from the really important underlying issue.
>
> While I accept the thrust of your comment, I felt it was important to
> displace the idea that ACPO advice was anything more than just that. It
> is all too often seen as "ex cathedra" decrees.
I could not agree more but the problem is that ACPO often seem to see
>> The question of what the document is called is simply a red herring
>> trying to divert attention from the really important underlying issue.
>
> While I accept the thrust of your comment, I felt it was important to
> displace the idea that ACPO advice was anything more than just that. It
> is all too often seen as "ex cathedra" decrees.
themselves as infallible.
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 3:31:10 PM5/22/14
to
In message <llle07$q1h$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:01:01 on Thu, 22 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>and restraining orders under the PHA (see 1.3.6 Restraining Orders)
>should be in the appropriate field on Police National Computer (PNC)
>and other relevant records"
So conflicting cites. Oh well.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> ps I note it does on to say:
>>
>> An individual�?Ts details would not be recorded on the police
>> national computer purely on the basis of a PIN being issued
>
>And the ACPO advice you have just held out again as authoritative
>includes (among many other
>exhortations on record keeping) in 1.3.4:
>
>"Details of previous conduct, any police information notice (see 3.9
>Police Information Notices)
The good news is they are using the right name.
>>
>> An individual�?Ts details would not be recorded on the police
>> national computer purely on the basis of a PIN being issued
>
>And the ACPO advice you have just held out again as authoritative
>includes (among many other
>exhortations on record keeping) in 1.3.4:
>
>"Details of previous conduct, any police information notice (see 3.9
>Police Information Notices)
>and restraining orders under the PHA (see 1.3.6 Restraining Orders)
>should be in the appropriate field on Police National Computer (PNC)
>and other relevant records"
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 3:34:36 PM5/22/14
to
In message <1fhsn916ru5k507er...@news.markshouse.net>, at
19:50:10 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
many years experience of actual cases.
--
Roland Perry
19:50:10 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>Some campaigns of harassment go on for decades,
>
>I'm sure that there are many cases where a course of conduct spans several
>years. But the point here is that two separate incidents more than a year
>apart cannot reasonably be considered a course of conduct. If it does span
>several years, then there also needs to be several incidents in each year.
That's the sort of value judgement I'd only be happy to be making with
>
>I'm sure that there are many cases where a course of conduct spans several
>years. But the point here is that two separate incidents more than a year
>apart cannot reasonably be considered a course of conduct. If it does span
>several years, then there also needs to be several incidents in each year.
many years experience of actual cases.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 3:39:16 PM5/22/14
to
In message <uthsn99vo7fbt3pof...@news.markshouse.net>, at
19:59:57 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
forces might be over-egging their notices. Far better to get that one
force to mend their ways, rather than thousands of cases of actual
harassment to stumble if PINs are abolished.
That's my view, anyway. Did you respond to the Home Office consultation
at all?
--
Roland Perry
19:59:57 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>I have no idea whether the Metropolitan Police have changed the wording on
>these letters since then, but this does make it clear that, at the time,
>they were indeed calling them "Prevention of Harassment" letters rather
>than Police Information Notices. Here's a version released by the Met in
>response to an FOI reqiest:
>
>http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2011/april/2011030002366.pdf
>
>>It is outrageous, and will remain so until the accused person has a right to
>>defend themselves in a court.
>
>The argument, of course, is that PIN is not an accusation and hence has no
>need of a defence. But that only holds water if it is worded in such a way
>that it does not carry the implication if an accusation.
But we can't dismiss an entire procedure just because one of 40+ police
>these letters since then, but this does make it clear that, at the time,
>they were indeed calling them "Prevention of Harassment" letters rather
>than Police Information Notices. Here's a version released by the Met in
>response to an FOI reqiest:
>
>http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2011/april/2011030002366.pdf
>
>>It is outrageous, and will remain so until the accused person has a right to
>>defend themselves in a court.
>
>The argument, of course, is that PIN is not an accusation and hence has no
>need of a defence. But that only holds water if it is worded in such a way
>that it does not carry the implication if an accusation.
forces might be over-egging their notices. Far better to get that one
force to mend their ways, rather than thousands of cases of actual
harassment to stumble if PINs are abolished.
That's my view, anyway. Did you respond to the Home Office consultation
at all?
--
Roland Perry
Robin
May 22, 2014, 3:58:22 PM5/22/14
to
> So conflicting cites. Oh well.
Given both sources were first cited by you in support of your arguments
..........
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 4:17:21 PM5/22/14
to
In message <lllksb$efl$1...@dont-email.me>, at 20:58:22 on Thu, 22 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
when we find two conflicting ones?
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> So conflicting cites. Oh well.
>
>Given both sources were first cited by you in support of your arguments
>..........
If we are supposed to be ruled by cites, what's the recommended strategy
>
>Given both sources were first cited by you in support of your arguments
>..........
when we find two conflicting ones?
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
May 22, 2014, 4:22:57 PM5/22/14
to
On Thu, 22 May 2014 20:39:16 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Well, I've found two template letters on the web so far, both of which are
seriously flawed. The Met's is worse, of course, but that doesn't mean all
the others are acceptable just because they're not as bad. And the Met is
the largest police force in the UK, by a considerable margin. So what they
do matters, even if they are the only ones doing it.
>That's my view, anyway. Did you respond to the Home Office consultation
>at all?
No, because I didn't know anything about it.
typed:
seriously flawed. The Met's is worse, of course, but that doesn't mean all
the others are acceptable just because they're not as bad. And the Met is
the largest police force in the UK, by a considerable margin. So what they
do matters, even if they are the only ones doing it.
>That's my view, anyway. Did you respond to the Home Office consultation
>at all?
Mark Goodge
May 22, 2014, 4:16:09 PM5/22/14
to
On Thu, 22 May 2014 20:34:36 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
This particular subpoint isn't specifically about harassment or stalking.
It's simply about the natural meaning of the phrase "course of conduct". In
the absence of guidance elsewhere in the legislation, words and phrases
have to be given their normal meaning. And I don't think that most people
would consider that incidents separated by a year or more could reasonably
be described by that phrase, unless there was some external reason for the
separation in time. So, for example, going skiing once every January could
be described as a course of conduct, but buying a loaf of bread from Tesco
Express twice in two years could not.
As far as harassment is concerned, then widely spaced incidents may be a
course of conduct if the opportunity itself only arose infrequently, but
not if it didn't:
"How often did she call you a faggot?"
"Every time she saw me"
"How often was that?"
"Every Christmas, when I visited my parents for the holidays"
as opposed to:
"How often did she call you a faggot?"
"Probably around once a year"
"How often does she see you?"
"Most working days, as we use the same bus stop"
The former probably could be described as a course of conduct. The latter
could not, without stretching normal English usage well beyond breaking
point.
typed:
It's simply about the natural meaning of the phrase "course of conduct". In
the absence of guidance elsewhere in the legislation, words and phrases
have to be given their normal meaning. And I don't think that most people
would consider that incidents separated by a year or more could reasonably
be described by that phrase, unless there was some external reason for the
separation in time. So, for example, going skiing once every January could
be described as a course of conduct, but buying a loaf of bread from Tesco
Express twice in two years could not.
As far as harassment is concerned, then widely spaced incidents may be a
course of conduct if the opportunity itself only arose infrequently, but
not if it didn't:
"How often did she call you a faggot?"
"Every time she saw me"
"How often was that?"
"Every Christmas, when I visited my parents for the holidays"
as opposed to:
"How often did she call you a faggot?"
"Probably around once a year"
"How often does she see you?"
"Most working days, as we use the same bus stop"
The former probably could be described as a course of conduct. The latter
could not, without stretching normal English usage well beyond breaking
point.
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 4:43:57 PM5/22/14
to
In message <v9WdnfcncrcZrOPO...@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:18:59 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
to protect the falsely accused, without letting more of the justly
accused escape?
--
Roland Perry
18:18:59 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>It cannot be right, or reasonable, that the rights of these people be
>subjugated simply because Parliament botched the legislation.
What simple fix to the law would you recommend, that has the potential
>subjugated simply because Parliament botched the legislation.
to protect the falsely accused, without letting more of the justly
accused escape?
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
May 22, 2014, 4:55:38 PM5/22/14
to
On Thu, 22 May 2014 13:58:26 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <f9jon9hbltibsh0a6...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>20:09:57 on Wed, 21 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>I think the whole PIN thing revolves around this "two instances"
>dilemma. It's supposed to be sent to someone as a crime prevention
>measure to stop one [alleged, obviously] instance potentially developing
>into two.
>
>And it would be more precise it if said "should the kind of behaviour
>that has been alleged, had it in fact occurred, were to continue.."
That's the more serious one. Although the letter is supposed to be neutral
as to the truth of the allegation, the current wording of that particular
section is very strongly biased towards the assumption that something
npotentially illegal has already taken place.
>But that's not going to win any plain-english awards.
The document as a whole is really badly written. It could be a lot clearer.
And if it was clearer, it would probably be more effective.
typed:
>In message <f9jon9hbltibsh0a6...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>20:09:57 on Wed, 21 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>(Incidentally, there's a couple of absolutely top class examples of begging
>>>>the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
>>>>person to spot them).
>>>
>>>I expect you mean the italicised "if".
>>
>>No, I mean the far more obvious ones than that.
>
>OK, how about it being impossible for the police to have received an
>allegation of a single instance of harassment, if two or more instances
>are required for it to be an offence of harassment?
That's just bad writing.
>>>>the question[1] in that document. Bonus Usenet Smugness Points to the first
>>>>person to spot them).
>>>
>>>I expect you mean the italicised "if".
>>
>>No, I mean the far more obvious ones than that.
>
>OK, how about it being impossible for the police to have received an
>allegation of a single instance of harassment, if two or more instances
>are required for it to be an offence of harassment?
>I think the whole PIN thing revolves around this "two instances"
>dilemma. It's supposed to be sent to someone as a crime prevention
>measure to stop one [alleged, obviously] instance potentially developing
>into two.
>
>And it would be more precise it if said "should the kind of behaviour
>that has been alleged, had it in fact occurred, were to continue.."
as to the truth of the allegation, the current wording of that particular
section is very strongly biased towards the assumption that something
npotentially illegal has already taken place.
>But that's not going to win any plain-english awards.
And if it was clearer, it would probably be more effective.
Roland Perry
May 22, 2014, 3:33:00 PM5/22/14
to
In message <hjfsn9tj8rqee68e7...@news.markshouse.net>, at
19:44:42 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
late paying my council tax.
--
Roland Perry
19:44:42 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>While I have many suggestions on how to make them more "friendly",
>>albeit risking the impact they would have on genuine perpetrators, they
>>are quite mild compared to many official communications one receives.
>
>Yes, but many people are, not unreasonably, more likely to be perturbed by
>getting a letter from the police than, say, their utility supplier or HMRC.
I was thinking about the sort of nonsense I've been sent when a week
>>albeit risking the impact they would have on genuine perpetrators, they
>>are quite mild compared to many official communications one receives.
>
>Yes, but many people are, not unreasonably, more likely to be perturbed by
>getting a letter from the police than, say, their utility supplier or HMRC.
late paying my council tax.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
May 23, 2014, 7:32:30 AM5/23/14
to
very well established principle of English law as espoused by Blackstone
in 1760 "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one
innocent suffer", What has happened recently in respect of harassment,
and some other crimes, is that this principle has been thrown out of the
window because of extreme pressure from the activists who simply cannot
accept it. In fact they would rather see the reverse that would result
in many being wrongfully convicted and have their lives destroyed. Even
worse this is being done without the authority of Parliament by the
likes of ACPO. Rather like mission creep I call this legislation creep
which has become more common in recent years. Of course I want to see
those who break the law brought to justice but not at the expense of the
innocent. The penalties, not just those imposed by the courts, can be so
high that the principle espoused by Blackstone is even more important
today than in the eighteenth century.
Stuart A. Bronstein
May 23, 2014, 10:51:50 AM5/23/14
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> So conflicting cites. Oh well.
>>
>>Given both sources were first cited by you in support of your
>>arguments ..........
>
> If we are supposed to be ruled by cites, what's the recommended
> strategy when we find two conflicting ones?
Is one more recent than the other?
> Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> So conflicting cites. Oh well.
>>
>>Given both sources were first cited by you in support of your
>>arguments ..........
>
> If we are supposed to be ruled by cites, what's the recommended
> strategy when we find two conflicting ones?
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Roland Perry
May 23, 2014, 11:14:50 AM5/23/14
to
In message <XnsA3364FFA68DFDs...@130.133.4.11>, at
14:51:50 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Stuart A. Bronstein
<spam...@lexregia.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
14:51:50 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Stuart A. Bronstein
<spam...@lexregia.com> remarked:
>> If we are supposed to be ruled by cites, what's the recommended
>> strategy when we find two conflicting ones?
>
>Is one more recent than the other?
Not to such an extent that one automatically invalidates the other.
>> strategy when we find two conflicting ones?
>
>Is one more recent than the other?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 23, 2014, 11:15:54 AM5/23/14
to
In message <1jcsn9h0oc70sad8h...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:55:38 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
21:55:38 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>The document as a whole is really badly written. It could be a lot clearer.
>And if it was clearer, it would probably be more effective.
I think we could agree to that.
>And if it was clearer, it would probably be more effective.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 23, 2014, 11:18:40 AM5/23/14
to
In message <M_WdnTp5L5VTrOLO...@brightview.co.uk>, at
12:32:30 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
What if the "other nine" people did actually end up murdering their
ex-partner?
--
Roland Perry
12:32:30 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>It is naive to think there is a simple solution to the problem. It is a
>very well established principle of English law as espoused by
>Blackstone in 1760 "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than
>that one innocent suffer", What has happened recently in respect of
>harassment, and some other crimes, is that this principle has been
>thrown out of the window because of extreme pressure from the
>activists who simply cannot accept it. In fact they would rather see
>the reverse that would result in many being wrongfully convicted and
>have their lives destroyed. Even worse this is being done without the
>authority of Parliament by the likes of ACPO. Rather like mission creep
>I call this legislation creep which has become more common in recent
>years. Of course I want to see those who break the law brought to
>justice but not at the expense of the innocent. The penalties, not just
>those imposed by the courts, can be so high that the principle espoused
>by Blackstone is even more important today than in the eighteenth century.
Do you have any statistics to back up your 10:1 theory.
>very well established principle of English law as espoused by
>Blackstone in 1760 "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than
>that one innocent suffer", What has happened recently in respect of
>harassment, and some other crimes, is that this principle has been
>thrown out of the window because of extreme pressure from the
>activists who simply cannot accept it. In fact they would rather see
>the reverse that would result in many being wrongfully convicted and
>have their lives destroyed. Even worse this is being done without the
>authority of Parliament by the likes of ACPO. Rather like mission creep
>I call this legislation creep which has become more common in recent
>years. Of course I want to see those who break the law brought to
>justice but not at the expense of the innocent. The penalties, not just
>those imposed by the courts, can be so high that the principle espoused
>by Blackstone is even more important today than in the eighteenth century.
What if the "other nine" people did actually end up murdering their
ex-partner?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 23, 2014, 11:24:44 AM5/23/14
to
In message <u1msn9ppktr3vsmre...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:16:09 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
that should the alleged[nb] conduct be proved to have happened again
would escape because of a defence that they didn't realise such conduct,
if repeated, would be an offence.
--
Roland Perry
21:16:09 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>Some campaigns of harassment go on for decades,
>>>
>>>I'm sure that there are many cases where a course of conduct spans several
>>>years. But the point here is that two separate incidents more than a year
>>>apart cannot reasonably be considered a course of conduct. If it does span
>>>several years, then there also needs to be several incidents in each year.
>>
>>That's the sort of value judgement I'd only be happy to be making with
>>many years experience of actual cases.
>
>This particular subpoint isn't specifically about harassment or stalking.
>It's simply about the natural meaning of the phrase "course of conduct". In
>the absence of guidance elsewhere in the legislation, words and phrases
>have to be given their normal meaning. And I don't think that most people
>would consider that incidents separated by a year or more could reasonably
>be described by that phrase
But what's your answer [should PINs be banned] for those perpetrator
>>>>Some campaigns of harassment go on for decades,
>>>
>>>I'm sure that there are many cases where a course of conduct spans several
>>>years. But the point here is that two separate incidents more than a year
>>>apart cannot reasonably be considered a course of conduct. If it does span
>>>several years, then there also needs to be several incidents in each year.
>>
>>That's the sort of value judgement I'd only be happy to be making with
>>many years experience of actual cases.
>
>This particular subpoint isn't specifically about harassment or stalking.
>It's simply about the natural meaning of the phrase "course of conduct". In
>the absence of guidance elsewhere in the legislation, words and phrases
>have to be given their normal meaning. And I don't think that most people
>would consider that incidents separated by a year or more could reasonably
>be described by that phrase
that should the alleged[nb] conduct be proved to have happened again
would escape because of a defence that they didn't realise such conduct,
if repeated, would be an offence.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 23, 2014, 11:26:46 AM5/23/14
to
In message <somsn9hd1nr6d92qa...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:22:57 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
21:22:57 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>
>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
>
>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
May 23, 2014, 2:05:11 PM5/23/14
to
On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:26:46 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Not really. For a start, it wasn't widely publicised. According to the
website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
general public should contribute to.
typed:
website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
general public should contribute to.
Mark Goodge
May 23, 2014, 2:06:52 PM5/23/14
to
On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:24:44 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
That's an entirely different question. I though we'd already established
that a PIN can be sent after just one allegation of harrassment. What we're
talking about here is the definiton of "course of conduct" in the sense
necessary to prosecute.
typed:
that a PIN can be sent after just one allegation of harrassment. What we're
talking about here is the definiton of "course of conduct" in the sense
necessary to prosecute.
Robin
May 23, 2014, 2:27:11 PM5/23/14
to
> Not really. For a start, it wasn't widely publicised. According to the
> website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
> stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
> consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
> general public should contribute to.
>
"Consult the people who will support what you propose" is sadly common
> website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
> stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
> consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
> general public should contribute to.
>
practice since the Blair/Brown machine made clear to civil servants that
integrity was not a career-ehancing trait.
Percy Picacity
May 23, 2014, 2:41:43 PM5/23/14
to
seems to be that the perpetrators have committed several offences of
assault, causing actual bodily harm, and threats to harm and kill
without being prosecuted. If an alternative was to prosecute them for
harassment, they are unlikely to convince a jury that they thought
their ex didn't mind them refusing to leaver her house or slapping her
face. If you look at the cases that have been mis-handled there is
usually ample evidence of crime that has not been prosecuted.
The only advantage of the the harassment procedure is that it gives
more control of the legal process to the complainant, if they have the
confidence to use it: it might be better to encourage police to pursue
stalkers without having to be constantly chivied by the victim.
--
Percy Picacity
Ste
May 23, 2014, 2:49:20 PM5/23/14
to
It may be better to let 10 guilty men go free than punish one innocent, but is it better to let 100, or 1,000 guilty men go free, than punish one innocent? At some point, you'd be punishing innocent people simply by failing to deliver any justice at all.
Concerns about punishing small numbers of innocent people, are best dealt with by a progressive justice system that rehabilitates and reintegrates offenders, and in which conditions inside prisons are comparable to normal, civilised life (albeit with some restrictions and additional monitoring).
As you say, it's much less reasonable to tolerate wrongful convictions when everything is at stake for the individual and the state can be used as a powerful weapon by vindictively-minded accusers, than when the stakes are modest and the usefulness of the state machinery to those with vindictive motives is much more modest.
Steve Walker
May 23, 2014, 8:53:37 PM5/23/14
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:25AkMNZQ...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <M_WdnTp5L5VTrOLO...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 12:32:30 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>It is naive to think there is a simple solution to the problem. It is a
>>very well established principle of English law as espoused by Blackstone
>>in 1760 "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one
>>innocent suffer", What has happened recently in respect of harassment,
>>and some other crimes, is that this principle has been thrown out of the
>>window because of extreme pressure from the activists who simply cannot
>>accept it. In fact they would rather see the reverse that would result in
>>many being wrongfully convicted and have their lives destroyed.
>
> 12:32:30 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>It is naive to think there is a simple solution to the problem. It is a
>>very well established principle of English law as espoused by Blackstone
>>in 1760 "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one
>>innocent suffer", What has happened recently in respect of harassment,
>>and some other crimes, is that this principle has been thrown out of the
>>window because of extreme pressure from the activists who simply cannot
>>accept it. In fact they would rather see the reverse that would result in
>>many being wrongfully convicted and have their lives destroyed.
>
> Do you have any statistics to back up your 10:1 theory.
>
> What if the "other nine" people did actually end up murdering their
> ex-partner?
It isn't a theory and it doesn't have a statistical base.
>
> What if the "other nine" people did actually end up murdering their
> ex-partner?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
What is your statistical base for the success of harassment warning letters
in reducing DV homicides?
Mark Goodge
May 24, 2014, 3:46:33 AM5/24/14
to
On Fri, 23 May 2014 11:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Ste put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>The other side of this coin is that it is better to let 10 victims spend their lives being harassed relentlessly, than send a warning letter to someone who is probably innocent.
The warning letters are not supposed to be a punishment, of course, and
hence Blackston'es dictum doesn't really apply.
FWIW, I think it's actually a good idea in many cases - not just stalking
and harrassment - for the police to let someone know that an allegation has
been made against them. In fact, I'd say that in many cases, someone who
has an allegation of criminal conduct made against them has a right to know
about it. But the point of such a notice is twofold: firstly, to give the
guilty a chance to mend their ways before it progresses to arrest and
prosecution, and, secondly, to give the innocent a chance to clear the air.
The problem with the PINs currently issued in cases where there have been
allegations of harrassment or stalking is that they seem to focus solely on
the first of these. And that's what makes the letters give the impression
of being a punishment, even though that is not what they are supposed to
be.
typed:
>The other side of this coin is that it is better to let 10 victims spend their lives being harassed relentlessly, than send a warning letter to someone who is probably innocent.
hence Blackston'es dictum doesn't really apply.
FWIW, I think it's actually a good idea in many cases - not just stalking
and harrassment - for the police to let someone know that an allegation has
been made against them. In fact, I'd say that in many cases, someone who
has an allegation of criminal conduct made against them has a right to know
about it. But the point of such a notice is twofold: firstly, to give the
guilty a chance to mend their ways before it progresses to arrest and
prosecution, and, secondly, to give the innocent a chance to clear the air.
The problem with the PINs currently issued in cases where there have been
allegations of harrassment or stalking is that they seem to focus solely on
the first of these. And that's what makes the letters give the impression
of being a punishment, even though that is not what they are supposed to
be.
Peter Crosland
May 24, 2014, 2:37:39 AM5/24/14
to
principle of English law that activists seek to overthrow. In fact their
attitude seems to be the exact opposite of the principle and that the
rights of the innocent should be ignored. Never mind the innocent if we
can get the number of convictions up is simply not justice.
tim.....
May 24, 2014, 5:12:41 AM5/24/14
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:upi0o99103trqkrs8...@news.markshouse.net...
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 11:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Ste put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>
>>The other side of this coin is that it is better to let 10 victims spend
>>their lives being harassed relentlessly, than send a warning letter to
>>someone who is probably innocent.
>
> The warning letters are not supposed to be a punishment,
Then they should go on a CRB check, should they
> typed:
>
>
>>The other side of this coin is that it is better to let 10 victims spend
>>their lives being harassed relentlessly, than send a warning letter to
>>someone who is probably innocent.
>
> The warning letters are not supposed to be a punishment,
tim
Big Les Wade
May 24, 2014, 5:17:48 AM5/24/14
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> posted
at least sometimes, and could therefore blight a person's life and
career via the CRB checking system. That, however, is not so much a
criticism of the PIN system as of the CRB system.
--
Les
>
>The warning letters are not supposed to be a punishment, of course, and
>hence Blackston'es dictum doesn't really apply.
>
>FWIW, I think it's actually a good idea in many cases - not just stalking
>and harrassment - for the police to let someone know that an allegation has
>been made against them. In fact, I'd say that in many cases, someone who
>has an allegation of criminal conduct made against them has a right to know
>about it. But the point of such a notice is twofold: firstly, to give the
>guilty a chance to mend their ways before it progresses to arrest and
>prosecution, and, secondly, to give the innocent a chance to clear the air.
>
>The problem with the PINs currently issued in cases where there have been
>allegations of harrassment or stalking is that they seem to focus solely on
>the first of these. And that's what makes the letters give the impression
>of being a punishment, even though that is not what they are supposed to
>be.
The other problem being that they *do* appear to be recorded on the PNC,
>The warning letters are not supposed to be a punishment, of course, and
>hence Blackston'es dictum doesn't really apply.
>
>FWIW, I think it's actually a good idea in many cases - not just stalking
>and harrassment - for the police to let someone know that an allegation has
>been made against them. In fact, I'd say that in many cases, someone who
>has an allegation of criminal conduct made against them has a right to know
>about it. But the point of such a notice is twofold: firstly, to give the
>guilty a chance to mend their ways before it progresses to arrest and
>prosecution, and, secondly, to give the innocent a chance to clear the air.
>
>The problem with the PINs currently issued in cases where there have been
>allegations of harrassment or stalking is that they seem to focus solely on
>the first of these. And that's what makes the letters give the impression
>of being a punishment, even though that is not what they are supposed to
>be.
at least sometimes, and could therefore blight a person's life and
career via the CRB checking system. That, however, is not so much a
criticism of the PIN system as of the CRB system.
--
Les
Roland Perry
May 24, 2014, 9:13:27 AM5/24/14
to
In message <llorh4$1e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 01:53:37 on Sat, 24 May
2014, Steve Walker <persi...@byzantium.invalid> remarked:
>What is your statistical base for the success of harassment warning
>letters in reducing DV homicides?
Oh dear, the goalposts have just flown across the room!
What I think I've been supporting is the success of PINs (can we
*please* use the correct name) in facilitating subsequent prosecutions
for non-homicidal stalking.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Steve Walker <persi...@byzantium.invalid> remarked:
>What is your statistical base for the success of harassment warning
>letters in reducing DV homicides?
What I think I've been supporting is the success of PINs (can we
*please* use the correct name) in facilitating subsequent prosecutions
for non-homicidal stalking.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 24, 2014, 9:24:11 AM5/24/14
to
In message <upi0o99103trqkrs8...@news.markshouse.net>, at
08:46:33 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>The problem with the PINs currently issued in cases where there have been
>allegations of harrassment or stalking is that they seem to focus solely on
>the first of these.
Legally, stalking is simply a subset of harassment.
But there are many other forms of harassment than stalking, such as
over-enthusiastic debt collectors and over-enthusiastic investigative
journalists.
I think we should look at each as quite separate categories.
(The investigative journalist thing has implications for public policy;
if Robert Maxwell could silence every single one, the first time they
asked an awkward question, would that be a good idea?)
>And that's what makes the letters give the impression of being a
>punishment, even though that is not what they are supposed to be.
They are not supposed to give that impression. The [original] idea was
more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
really, really, wants you to stop".
--
Roland Perry
08:46:33 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>But the point of such a notice is twofold: firstly, to give the
>guilty a chance to mend their ways before it progresses to arrest and
>prosecution
That's the main intention.
>guilty a chance to mend their ways before it progresses to arrest and
>prosecution
>The problem with the PINs currently issued in cases where there have been
>allegations of harrassment or stalking is that they seem to focus solely on
>the first of these.
But there are many other forms of harassment than stalking, such as
over-enthusiastic debt collectors and over-enthusiastic investigative
journalists.
I think we should look at each as quite separate categories.
(The investigative journalist thing has implications for public policy;
if Robert Maxwell could silence every single one, the first time they
asked an awkward question, would that be a good idea?)
>And that's what makes the letters give the impression of being a
>punishment, even though that is not what they are supposed to be.
more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
really, really, wants you to stop".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 24, 2014, 9:27:34 AM5/24/14
to
In message <ff3vn955ul31g8q65...@news.markshouse.net>, at
19:06:52 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>What we're talking about here is the definiton of "course of conduct"
>in the sense necessary to prosecute.
That's (according to the law) two allegations. Although in practice it's
usually very hard to get the police to act unless there's been dozens.
--
Roland Perry
19:06:52 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>But what's your answer [should PINs be banned] for those perpetrator
>>that should the alleged[nb] conduct be proved to have happened again
>>would escape because of a defence that they didn't realise such conduct,
>>if repeated, would be an offence.
>
>That's an entirely different question. I though we'd already established
>that a PIN can be sent after just one allegation of harrassment.
Should *only* be sent after just one allegation.
>>that should the alleged[nb] conduct be proved to have happened again
>>would escape because of a defence that they didn't realise such conduct,
>>if repeated, would be an offence.
>
>That's an entirely different question. I though we'd already established
>that a PIN can be sent after just one allegation of harrassment.
>What we're talking about here is the definiton of "course of conduct"
>in the sense necessary to prosecute.
usually very hard to get the police to act unless there's been dozens.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 24, 2014, 9:28:49 AM5/24/14
to
In message <ib3vn9ta4befbaf7h...@news.markshouse.net>, at
19:05:11 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Mark Goodge
--
Roland Perry
19:05:11 on Fri, 23 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>>>
>>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>>
>>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
>
>Not really. For a start, it wasn't widely publicised. According to the
>website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
>stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
>consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
>general public should contribute to.
"Ignorance of the consultation process is no excuse".
>>>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>>>
>>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>>
>>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
>
>Not really. For a start, it wasn't widely publicised. According to the
>website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
>stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
>consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
>general public should contribute to.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
May 24, 2014, 10:16:54 AM5/24/14
to
On Sat, 24 May 2014 14:24:11 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <upi0o99103trqkrs8...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>08:46:33 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>But the point of such a notice is twofold: firstly, to give the
>>guilty a chance to mend their ways before it progresses to arrest and
>>prosecution
>
>That's the main intention.
By "such a notice" I meant the ones I was proposing, not the ones currently
sent.
>>The problem with the PINs currently issued in cases where there have been
>>allegations of harrassment or stalking is that they seem to focus solely on
>>the first of these.
>
>Legally, stalking is simply a subset of harassment.
By "the first of these", I meant the first purpose of the letters, as
opposed to the second. Not stalking as opposed to harrassment.
>But there are many other forms of harassment than stalking, such as
>over-enthusiastic debt collectors and over-enthusiastic investigative
>journalists.
>
>I think we should look at each as quite separate categories.
I entirely agree that harrassment has a very large number of
sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
>(The investigative journalist thing has implications for public policy;
>if Robert Maxwell could silence every single one, the first time they
>asked an awkward question, would that be a good idea?)
Indeed, I think this is a very good example of how the legislation is in
danger of being abused.
>>And that's what makes the letters give the impression of being a
>>punishment, even though that is not what they are supposed to be.
>
>They are not supposed to give that impression. The [original] idea was
>more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
>ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
>if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
>really, really, wants you to stop".
In which case the letters are making a presumption of guilt, which is
precisely what, according to the ACPO guidelines, they are not supposed to
do. And it's also what makes them a form of punishment rather than simply
being a genuine notification.
More to the point, though, this neatly illustrates one of the main flaws in
the legislation. If an investigative journalist asking a few awkward
questions is treated in the same way as an obsessed ex bombarding someone
with text messages, then there is something seriously wrong with it. And
these flaws are not justified by the genuine benefits that the legislation
brings when it comes to dealing with the texting-ex scenario. The fact that
the legislation is acheiving its intended purpose doesn't mean that its
unintended consequences are acceptable.
typed:
>In message <upi0o99103trqkrs8...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>08:46:33 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>But the point of such a notice is twofold: firstly, to give the
>>guilty a chance to mend their ways before it progresses to arrest and
>>prosecution
>
>That's the main intention.
sent.
>>The problem with the PINs currently issued in cases where there have been
>>allegations of harrassment or stalking is that they seem to focus solely on
>>the first of these.
>
>Legally, stalking is simply a subset of harassment.
opposed to the second. Not stalking as opposed to harrassment.
>But there are many other forms of harassment than stalking, such as
>over-enthusiastic debt collectors and over-enthusiastic investigative
>journalists.
>
>I think we should look at each as quite separate categories.
sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
>(The investigative journalist thing has implications for public policy;
>if Robert Maxwell could silence every single one, the first time they
>asked an awkward question, would that be a good idea?)
danger of being abused.
>>And that's what makes the letters give the impression of being a
>>punishment, even though that is not what they are supposed to be.
>
>They are not supposed to give that impression. The [original] idea was
>more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
>ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
>if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
>really, really, wants you to stop".
precisely what, according to the ACPO guidelines, they are not supposed to
do. And it's also what makes them a form of punishment rather than simply
being a genuine notification.
More to the point, though, this neatly illustrates one of the main flaws in
the legislation. If an investigative journalist asking a few awkward
questions is treated in the same way as an obsessed ex bombarding someone
with text messages, then there is something seriously wrong with it. And
these flaws are not justified by the genuine benefits that the legislation
brings when it comes to dealing with the texting-ex scenario. The fact that
the legislation is acheiving its intended purpose doesn't mean that its
unintended consequences are acceptable.
Mark Goodge
May 24, 2014, 10:05:18 AM5/24/14
to
On Sat, 24 May 2014 14:13:27 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
But is that the most important measure of their success?
typed:
Mark Goodge
May 24, 2014, 10:18:54 AM5/24/14
to
On Sat, 24 May 2014 14:28:49 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
That appears to be a quote from somewhere. If so, where?
typed:
Roland Perry
May 24, 2014, 10:50:49 AM5/24/14
to
In message <fo91o9lnhp64evpcq...@news.markshouse.net>, at
15:05:18 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
For the sort of cases I've heard of recently like an ex-partner breaking
into the ex-marital home and trying to stab the ex-wife, then claiming
her injury was a result of her trying to stop him stabbing himself, we
need something a bit more serious than a PIN.
--
Roland Perry
15:05:18 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>What I think I've been supporting is the success of PINs (can we
>>*please* use the correct name) in facilitating subsequent prosecutions
>>for non-homicidal stalking.
>
>But is that the most important measure of their success?
Yes, I think it is.
>>*please* use the correct name) in facilitating subsequent prosecutions
>>for non-homicidal stalking.
>
>But is that the most important measure of their success?
For the sort of cases I've heard of recently like an ex-partner breaking
into the ex-marital home and trying to stab the ex-wife, then claiming
her injury was a result of her trying to stop him stabbing himself, we
need something a bit more serious than a PIN.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 24, 2014, 10:52:28 AM5/24/14
to
In message <ap91o91dbj00sqi9d...@news.markshouse.net>, at
15:16:54 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
many examples of stalking on the face of the Act a very good thing.
--
Roland Perry
15:16:54 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>I entirely agree that harrassment has a very large number of
>sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
>that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
>of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
Which is why I think the recent revision to the legislation which puts
>sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
>that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
>of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
many examples of stalking on the face of the Act a very good thing.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 24, 2014, 10:56:27 AM5/24/14
to
In message <oha1o9l4sv943m495...@news.markshouse.net>, at
15:18:54 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
Of people can't be bothered to keep up to date with consultation
processes, or at second hand subscribe to organisations which might do
that for them, why should we lose any sleep over their detachment?
ps. Ultimately, we vote in people called MPs to do much of this sort of
stuff as representatives of us. It's your choice whether you give them
free reign, or attempt to guide their processes.
--
Roland Perry
15:18:54 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>>>>
>>>>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
>>>
>>>Not really. For a start, it wasn't widely publicised. According to the
>>>website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
>>>stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
>>>consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
>>>general public should contribute to.
>>
>>"Ignorance of the consultation process is no excuse".
>
>That appears to be a quote from somewhere. If so, where?
It's a reference to "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
>>>>>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>>>>
>>>>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
>>>
>>>Not really. For a start, it wasn't widely publicised. According to the
>>>website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
>>>stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
>>>consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
>>>general public should contribute to.
>>
>>"Ignorance of the consultation process is no excuse".
>
>That appears to be a quote from somewhere. If so, where?
Of people can't be bothered to keep up to date with consultation
processes, or at second hand subscribe to organisations which might do
that for them, why should we lose any sleep over their detachment?
ps. Ultimately, we vote in people called MPs to do much of this sort of
stuff as representatives of us. It's your choice whether you give them
free reign, or attempt to guide their processes.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
May 24, 2014, 12:35:35 PM5/24/14
to
> Of people can't be bothered to keep up to date with consultation
> processes, or at second hand subscribe to organisations which might do
> that for them, why should we lose any sleep over their detachment?
>
May we assume then you won't complain when the bulldozers appear on
> processes, or at second hand subscribe to organisations which might do
> that for them, why should we lose any sleep over their detachment?
>
Tuesday morning to knock your house down[1]?
The consultation in 2011 has all the hallmarks of being aimed at those
already known to be on-side with the preferred conclusions. I may of
course be wrong. And sometimes it's accidental (eg because there are
unseen consequences for people who aren't expected to be affected).
OTOH sometimes it's not (eg because there are people who will spot flaws
in the arguments). But I've seen such consultations from various angles
and I know which I'd bet on.
[1] And before the constabulary appear on my doorstep to serve a warning
letter[2] on me, that question is a reference to the Hitch-Hiker's Guide
to the Galaxy. That is a work - or a series of works - of fiction of a
humorous nature. The basis of the opening Act is that a house is about
to be abolished to make room for a bypass; the occupier had been unaware
of this despite plans for the bypass having been on display 9 months[3].
The question does not imply any desire to see damage done to the house
in question or any other property. Nor is it intended to create alarm
or distress.
[2][ I'll use what you insist is the "proper term" if you will write
open letters to the Met Police, Lord Justice Moore-Bick et al asking
them to please use PIN as that is the proper term :)
Mark Goodge
May 24, 2014, 1:28:43 PM5/24/14
to
On Sat, 24 May 2014 15:50:49 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <fo91o9lnhp64evpcq...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>15:05:18 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>What I think I've been supporting is the success of PINs (can we
>>>*please* use the correct name) in facilitating subsequent prosecutions
>>>for non-homicidal stalking.
>>
>>But is that the most important measure of their success?
>
>Yes, I think it is.
So you think that getting a sucessful prosecution is more important than
deterring someone from a course of action that would otherwise lead to
prosecution?
>For the sort of cases I've heard of recently like an ex-partner breaking
>into the ex-marital home and trying to stab the ex-wife, then claiming
>her injury was a result of her trying to stop him stabbing himself, we
>need something a bit more serious than a PIN.
It's also an entirely different offence to stalking. I don't think that
there's any point in trying to warn someone off doing any more stabbings.
Nor do they need to stab as part of a course of conduct for it to be an
offence.
typed:
>In message <fo91o9lnhp64evpcq...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>15:05:18 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>What I think I've been supporting is the success of PINs (can we
>>>*please* use the correct name) in facilitating subsequent prosecutions
>>>for non-homicidal stalking.
>>
>>But is that the most important measure of their success?
>
>Yes, I think it is.
deterring someone from a course of action that would otherwise lead to
prosecution?
>For the sort of cases I've heard of recently like an ex-partner breaking
>into the ex-marital home and trying to stab the ex-wife, then claiming
>her injury was a result of her trying to stop him stabbing himself, we
>need something a bit more serious than a PIN.
there's any point in trying to warn someone off doing any more stabbings.
Nor do they need to stab as part of a course of conduct for it to be an
offence.
Mark Goodge
May 24, 2014, 1:30:08 PM5/24/14
to
On Sat, 24 May 2014 15:52:28 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
But does it also make it clear that, for example, carrying out the work of
an investigative journalist is not (normally) harrassment?
typed:
an investigative journalist is not (normally) harrassment?
Mark Goodge
May 24, 2014, 1:42:28 PM5/24/14
to
On Sat, 24 May 2014 15:56:27 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <oha1o9l4sv943m495...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>15:18:54 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
>>>>
>>>>Not really. For a start, it wasn't widely publicised. According to the
>>>>website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
>>>>stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
>>>>consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
>>>>general public should contribute to.
>>>
>>>"Ignorance of the consultation process is no excuse".
>>
>>That appears to be a quote from somewhere. If so, where?
>
>It's a reference to "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
It is, of course, not a crime to be unaware of a consultation.
>Of people can't be bothered to keep up to date with consultation
>processes, or at second hand subscribe to organisations which might do
>that for them, why should we lose any sleep over their detachment?
The government issues lots of consultations. Some of them are more widely
publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
>ps. Ultimately, we vote in people called MPs to do much of this sort of
>stuff as representatives of us. It's your choice whether you give them
>free reign, or attempt to guide their processes.
It isn't either/or.
typed:
>In message <oha1o9l4sv943m495...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>15:18:54 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
>>>>
>>>>Not really. For a start, it wasn't widely publicised. According to the
>>>>website it was aimed primarily at organisations involved in combatting
>>>>stalking, who were invoted to contribute. Although it wasn't a secret
>>>>consultation, it doesn't appear to have been intended as one that the
>>>>general public should contribute to.
>>>
>>>"Ignorance of the consultation process is no excuse".
>>
>>That appears to be a quote from somewhere. If so, where?
>
>It's a reference to "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
>Of people can't be bothered to keep up to date with consultation
>processes, or at second hand subscribe to organisations which might do
>that for them, why should we lose any sleep over their detachment?
publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
>ps. Ultimately, we vote in people called MPs to do much of this sort of
>stuff as representatives of us. It's your choice whether you give them
>free reign, or attempt to guide their processes.
Judith
May 24, 2014, 12:28:37 PM5/24/14
to
On Tue, 20 May 2014 21:16:39 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>>check,
>
>No it doesn't.
Are you sure about this - and if so, what makes you so sure: they certainly
seem to have appeared on the old ECRB check.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We get a lot of questions about harassment warnings and we are grateful to
JHJones for raising this issue. In particular we have been contacted by a
number of individuals who only really appreciated the implications of having
been given a harassment warning once it appeared on a certificate following an
enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (ECRB) check.
and
The main problem for people who have contacted us about harassment warnings is
with enhanced ECRBs. In the same way that unsubstantiated allegations can be
disclosed by police on an ECRB, so can the fact of a harassment warning having
been issued. This can be disclosed in the section of the certificate entitled
"other relevant information".
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/09/harassment-warning-fair-hearing
<snip>
>>But it will, nonetheless, appear on any subsequent enhanced DBS
>>check,
>
>No it doesn't.
Are you sure about this - and if so, what makes you so sure: they certainly
seem to have appeared on the old ECRB check.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We get a lot of questions about harassment warnings and we are grateful to
JHJones for raising this issue. In particular we have been contacted by a
number of individuals who only really appreciated the implications of having
been given a harassment warning once it appeared on a certificate following an
enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (ECRB) check.
and
The main problem for people who have contacted us about harassment warnings is
with enhanced ECRBs. In the same way that unsubstantiated allegations can be
disclosed by police on an ECRB, so can the fact of a harassment warning having
been issued. This can be disclosed in the section of the certificate entitled
"other relevant information".
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/09/harassment-warning-fair-hearing
Judith
May 24, 2014, 3:04:46 PM5/24/14
to
On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:26:46 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <somsn9hd1nr6d92qa...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>21:22:57 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
papers I had read and on the TV news over the last month or so.
I also had not been made aware that the Home Office Consultation disused was
coming up.
Spot the difference?
>In message <somsn9hd1nr6d92qa...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>21:22:57 on Thu, 22 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>>
>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>
>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
I had seen the fact that there was an EU election coming up in all the national
>>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>>
>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>
>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
papers I had read and on the TV news over the last month or so.
I also had not been made aware that the Home Office Consultation disused was
coming up.
Spot the difference?
Judith
May 24, 2014, 12:14:26 PM5/24/14
to
On Tue, 20 May 2014 18:52:39 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>While browsing the news yesterday, I spotted an interesting case of a false
>accusation of harassment, which resulted in a "harassment warning" letter
>being sent to the alleged harasser (who, in reality was nothing of the
>sort).
>
>In some respects, it fits the pattern previously mentioned by Roland, where
>a false accusation of harassment is made by the real perpetrator of an
>offence in order to attempt to deflect attention from their own activities.
>But, in this case, it's far from a typical "domestic" dispute.
Interesting post.
James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said: "All too often the police seem
to hand out harassment notices without adequate investigation or consideration
of the validity of complaints.
I suspect that this is very true - it appears that the legislation has handed
the police a means of them "harassing" people themselves - with little or no
legal comeback.
I guess that in this case, we have not heard the end of it: but most people in
similar circumstances will not have the clout that the media organisation has
to pursue this matter until it is resolved - and hopefully the harassment
warning withdrawn.
It certainly seems to be ill thought through legislation.
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>While browsing the news yesterday, I spotted an interesting case of a false
>accusation of harassment, which resulted in a "harassment warning" letter
>being sent to the alleged harasser (who, in reality was nothing of the
>sort).
>
>In some respects, it fits the pattern previously mentioned by Roland, where
>a false accusation of harassment is made by the real perpetrator of an
>offence in order to attempt to deflect attention from their own activities.
>But, in this case, it's far from a typical "domestic" dispute.
Interesting post.
James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said: "All too often the police seem
to hand out harassment notices without adequate investigation or consideration
of the validity of complaints.
I suspect that this is very true - it appears that the legislation has handed
the police a means of them "harassing" people themselves - with little or no
legal comeback.
I guess that in this case, we have not heard the end of it: but most people in
similar circumstances will not have the clout that the media organisation has
to pursue this matter until it is resolved - and hopefully the harassment
warning withdrawn.
It certainly seems to be ill thought through legislation.
Robin
May 24, 2014, 10:04:51 AM5/24/14
to
> They are not supposed to give that impression. The [original] idea was
> more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
> ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
> if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
> really, really, wants you to stop".
And yet we have the police serving one on Tim Loughton MP for sending a
> more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
> ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
> if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
> really, really, wants you to stop".
copy of Hansard to a person who had harassed him and his staff, and then
defending their action[1]. It would be an entertaining farce if it
weren't so scary that (a) they still didn't apologise to the MP and (b)
yet again, if they can treat a sitting MP like that what hope for the
rest of us?
[1] see eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25930167
Steve Walker
May 25, 2014, 5:45:45 AM5/25/14
to
news:x19lfOcb...@perry.co.uk...
> Of people can't be bothered to keep up to date with consultation
> processes, or at second hand subscribe to organisations which might do
> that for them, why should we lose any sleep over their detachment?
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for
the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them,
yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call
attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or
anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying
'Beware of the Leopard'."
www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/
> Of people can't be bothered to keep up to date with consultation
> processes, or at second hand subscribe to organisations which might do
> that for them, why should we lose any sleep over their detachment?
the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them,
yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call
attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or
anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying
'Beware of the Leopard'."
www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 5:44:26 AM5/25/14
to
In message <2hl1o9tg6ikmdtidu...@news.markshouse.net>, at
18:28:43 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
doing that such as verbal advice (and not just from the police).
Therefore as a piece of written advice from the police I think the
*PIN's* role is more "important" in the context of later prosecution.
--
Roland Perry
18:28:43 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>On Sat, 24 May 2014 15:50:49 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>In message <fo91o9lnhp64evpcq...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>>15:05:18 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>What I think I've been supporting is the success of PINs (can we
>>>>*please* use the correct name) in facilitating subsequent prosecutions
>>>>for non-homicidal stalking.
>>>
>>>But is that the most important measure of their success?
>>
>>Yes, I think it is.
>
>So you think that getting a sucessful prosecution is more important than
>deterring someone from a course of action that would otherwise lead to
>prosecution?
It'd be better if people were deterred, but there are other ways of
>On Sat, 24 May 2014 15:50:49 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>In message <fo91o9lnhp64evpcq...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>>15:05:18 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>What I think I've been supporting is the success of PINs (can we
>>>>*please* use the correct name) in facilitating subsequent prosecutions
>>>>for non-homicidal stalking.
>>>
>>>But is that the most important measure of their success?
>>
>>Yes, I think it is.
>
>So you think that getting a sucessful prosecution is more important than
>deterring someone from a course of action that would otherwise lead to
>prosecution?
doing that such as verbal advice (and not just from the police).
Therefore as a piece of written advice from the police I think the
*PIN's* role is more "important" in the context of later prosecution.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 5:50:34 AM5/25/14
to
In message <anl1o9pbhr27u9d4k...@news.markshouse.net>, at
18:30:08 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
potential effect on the victim, rather than the potential actions of the
perpetrators.
--
Roland Perry
18:30:08 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>I entirely agree that harrassment has a very large number of
>>>sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
>>>that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
>>>of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
>>
>>Which is why I think the recent revision to the legislation which puts
>>many examples of stalking on the face of the Act a very good thing.
>
>But does it also make it clear that, for example, carrying out the work of
>an investigative journalist is not (normally) harrassment?
It looks at things from the opposite end of the telescope - the
>>>I entirely agree that harrassment has a very large number of
>>>sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
>>>that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
>>>of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
>>
>>Which is why I think the recent revision to the legislation which puts
>>many examples of stalking on the face of the Act a very good thing.
>
>But does it also make it clear that, for example, carrying out the work of
>an investigative journalist is not (normally) harrassment?
potential effect on the victim, rather than the potential actions of the
perpetrators.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Walker
May 25, 2014, 5:49:58 AM5/25/14
to
news:t02yvgT3...@perry.co.uk...
have any statistics to back up your 10:1 theory?" If you think statistics
are necessary to prove an argument, then you presumably have some for your
own assertions.
> In message <llorh4$1e4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 01:53:37 on Sat, 24 May 2014,
> Steve Walker <persi...@byzantium.invalid> remarked:
>
>>What is your statistical base for the success of harassment warning
>>letters in reducing DV homicides?
>
> Oh dear, the goalposts have just flown across the room!
The goalposts are exactly where you put them. You asked Robin - "Do you
> Steve Walker <persi...@byzantium.invalid> remarked:
>
>>What is your statistical base for the success of harassment warning
>>letters in reducing DV homicides?
>
> Oh dear, the goalposts have just flown across the room!
have any statistics to back up your 10:1 theory?" If you think statistics
are necessary to prove an argument, then you presumably have some for your
own assertions.
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 5:49:07 AM5/25/14
to
In message <llq8t5$299$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:04:51 on Sat, 24 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> They are not supposed to give that impression. The [original] idea was
>> more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
>> ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
>> if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
>> really, really, wants you to stop".
>
>And yet we have the police serving one on Tim Loughton MP
I'm not here to defend the police's actions in specific cases.
>> more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
>> ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
>> if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
>> really, really, wants you to stop".
>
>And yet we have the police serving one on Tim Loughton MP
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 5:54:03 AM5/25/14
to
In message <llqhnm$v3m$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:35:35 on Sat, 24 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
me putting in dissenting opinions.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>The consultation in 2011 has all the hallmarks of being aimed at those
>already known to be on-side with the preferred conclusions.
That's a common view about consultations, but one that's never stopped
>already known to be on-side with the preferred conclusions.
me putting in dissenting opinions.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 5:57:07 AM5/25/14
to
In message <5rl1o9tvk9chck99a...@news.markshouse.net>, at
18:42:28 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>ps. Ultimately, we vote in people called MPs to do much of this sort of
>>stuff as representatives of us. It's your choice whether you give them
>>free reign, or attempt to guide their processes.
>
>It isn't either/or.
I didn't say it was. In practice most people will have limited time to
get involved in this kind of thing, and only lobby their MPs about
things they are especially concerned about.
--
Roland Perry
18:42:28 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>The government issues lots of consultations. Some of them are more widely
>publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
>all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
How do you know that?
>publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
>all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
>>ps. Ultimately, we vote in people called MPs to do much of this sort of
>>stuff as representatives of us. It's your choice whether you give them
>>free reign, or attempt to guide their processes.
>
>It isn't either/or.
get involved in this kind of thing, and only lobby their MPs about
things they are especially concerned about.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 5:59:47 AM5/25/14
to
In message <llse4b$uth$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:45:45 on Sun, 25 May
--
Roland Perry
2014, Steve Walker <persi...@byzantium.invalid> remarked:
>"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning
>office for the last nine months."
Yes, I heard that when it was first broadcast.
>office for the last nine months."
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 6:07:24 AM5/25/14
to
In message <07r1o95i7leh84oub...@4ax.com>, at 20:04:46 on
Sat, 24 May 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
didn't go to any meetings (public or private) to discuss the policies of
the candidates standing locally; I had to rely on second hand
impressions.
Another good example is the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, who posed a
series of questions to candidates in the District election there. That
saves each voter having to make their own enquiries, but they were
entitled to it they wished.
If you are interested in a specific national issue (which might be
subject to a Consultation from time to time) it's again a choice of
getting directly involved, or relying on what trickles down from others.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 24 May 2014, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>Did you respond to the Home Office consultation at all?
>>>
>>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>>
>>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
>
>I had seen the fact that there was an EU election coming up in all the national
>papers I had read and on the TV news over the last month or so.
>
>I also had not been made aware that the Home Office Consultation disused was
>coming up.
>
>Spot the difference?
It's a just matter of scale. While I was aware of the EU election, I
>>>
>>>No, because I didn't know anything about it.
>>
>>That's like not voting in yesterday's EU election.
>
>I had seen the fact that there was an EU election coming up in all the national
>papers I had read and on the TV news over the last month or so.
>
>I also had not been made aware that the Home Office Consultation disused was
>coming up.
>
>Spot the difference?
didn't go to any meetings (public or private) to discuss the policies of
the candidates standing locally; I had to rely on second hand
impressions.
Another good example is the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, who posed a
series of questions to candidates in the District election there. That
saves each voter having to make their own enquiries, but they were
entitled to it they wished.
If you are interested in a specific national issue (which might be
subject to a Consultation from time to time) it's again a choice of
getting directly involved, or relying on what trickles down from others.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 6:33:03 AM5/25/14
to
In message <llsec7$n3$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:49:58 on Sun, 25 May 2014,
subject significantly.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Walker <persi...@byzantium.invalid> remarked:
>>>What is your statistical base for the success of harassment warning
>>>letters in reducing DV homicides?
>>
>> Oh dear, the goalposts have just flown across the room!
>
>The goalposts are exactly where you put them.
No, "my" goalposts were non-homicidal stalking. Robin then changed the
>>>What is your statistical base for the success of harassment warning
>>>letters in reducing DV homicides?
>>
>> Oh dear, the goalposts have just flown across the room!
>
>The goalposts are exactly where you put them.
subject significantly.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
May 25, 2014, 7:15:00 AM5/25/14
to
> No, "my" goalposts were non-homicidal stalking. Robin then changed the
> subject significantly.
I think you need to review the thread.
> subject significantly.
And then consider how you would feel if I made a complaint to the police
on the basis that I felt alarmed and distressed by a post which accuses
me of doing something I didn't and the police then served you with a
warning under the Harassment Act 1997 (to use the terminology of the
NPIA in their 2010 Guidance on the Management of Police Information.)
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 8:05:15 AM5/25/14
to
In message <llsjbe$v7o$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:15:00 on Sun, 25 May
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>And then consider how you would feel if I made a complaint to the police
>on the basis that I felt alarmed and distressed by a post which accuses
>me of doing something I didn't and the police then served you with a
>warning under the Harassment Act 1997 (to use the terminology of the
>NPIA in their 2010 Guidance on the Management of Police Information.)
That's the "Police Information" disseminated in "N"otices.
But I also think they'd be very unlikely to act in a case involving one
low-key posting on "social media", which is what they'd regard Usenet
as. In the process you'd probably be unmasked, so at least I'd find out
who it was I was being alleged to have harassed.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> No, "my" goalposts were non-homicidal stalking. Robin then changed the
>> subject significantly.
>
>I think you need to review the thread.
Indeed. It was Steve, not yourself. Sorry about that.
>> subject significantly.
>
>I think you need to review the thread.
>And then consider how you would feel if I made a complaint to the police
>on the basis that I felt alarmed and distressed by a post which accuses
>me of doing something I didn't and the police then served you with a
>warning under the Harassment Act 1997 (to use the terminology of the
>NPIA in their 2010 Guidance on the Management of Police Information.)
But I also think they'd be very unlikely to act in a case involving one
low-key posting on "social media", which is what they'd regard Usenet
as. In the process you'd probably be unmasked, so at least I'd find out
who it was I was being alleged to have harassed.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
May 25, 2014, 8:41:38 AM5/25/14
to
On Sun, 25 May 2014 10:49:07 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
No, but you are defending the legislation which enables the police to get
it so obviously and seriously wrong in this case.
typed:
it so obviously and seriously wrong in this case.
Mark Goodge
May 25, 2014, 8:48:17 AM5/25/14
to
On Sun, 25 May 2014 10:57:07 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <5rl1o9tvk9chck99a...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>18:42:28 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>The government issues lots of consultations. Some of them are more widely
>>publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
>>all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
>
>How do you know that?
Because it says so in the consultation itself:
This is a consultation to seek the views of key partners, and directly
affected parties, including the police, practitioners, other government
departments and organisations with a direct interest in preventing
stalking.
The consultation is also available on the Home Office website and we also
invite comments from members of the public.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/157898/consultation.pdf
The second paragraph doesn't negate the first. Although the pblic were
invited to comment, insasmuch as they knew about it, the consultation was
not publicised beyond simply being placed on the Home Office website. By
contrast, the organisations invited to contibute were directly informed of
it and were specifically asked to contribute.
typed:
>In message <5rl1o9tvk9chck99a...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>18:42:28 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>The government issues lots of consultations. Some of them are more widely
>>publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
>>all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
>
>How do you know that?
This is a consultation to seek the views of key partners, and directly
affected parties, including the police, practitioners, other government
departments and organisations with a direct interest in preventing
stalking.
The consultation is also available on the Home Office website and we also
invite comments from members of the public.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/157898/consultation.pdf
The second paragraph doesn't negate the first. Although the pblic were
invited to comment, insasmuch as they knew about it, the consultation was
not publicised beyond simply being placed on the Home Office website. By
contrast, the organisations invited to contibute were directly informed of
it and were specifically asked to contribute.
Mark Goodge
May 25, 2014, 8:40:48 AM5/25/14
to
On Sun, 25 May 2014 10:50:34 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Yes, but in this case the journalist *is* the victim, as he is falsely
being accused of harrassment.
You appear to be of the opinion that unintended consequences of the
legislation (such as journalists being issued with a PIN simply for doing
their job) are irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is whether the
intended consequences (deterring and prosecuting perpetrators of genuine
harrassment) are achieved.
That's essentially the same argument as that made by proponents of the
Communications Data Bill: that it doesn't matter how many entirely innocent
people have their privacy infringed, if just one more terrorist or
paedophile is caught. Or the argument made by those in favour allowing the
police indiscriminate stop and search powers: if it means more real
crimianls are caught then it doesn't matter how many innocent people are
inconvenienced.
I think those arguments are wrong in both those cases, and I think that
they your argument (if, indeed, that is the position you are taking) is
wrong, too. I do not disagree that stalking is a serious matter which
merits being addressed by the law, and I do not disagree that people have a
right to be protected by the law from being unjustly harrassed. But I do
not believe that legislation designed to acheive those ends can be written,
or enforced, withough being mindful of the potential for undesirable
consequences.
You have given me no reassurance so far that any consideration has been
given to minimising any unintended and undesirable consequences of the
anti-harrassment. Far from it, in fact - you appear to be going out of your
way to insist that these are of no concern whatsoever.
typed:
being accused of harrassment.
You appear to be of the opinion that unintended consequences of the
legislation (such as journalists being issued with a PIN simply for doing
their job) are irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is whether the
intended consequences (deterring and prosecuting perpetrators of genuine
harrassment) are achieved.
That's essentially the same argument as that made by proponents of the
Communications Data Bill: that it doesn't matter how many entirely innocent
people have their privacy infringed, if just one more terrorist or
paedophile is caught. Or the argument made by those in favour allowing the
police indiscriminate stop and search powers: if it means more real
crimianls are caught then it doesn't matter how many innocent people are
inconvenienced.
I think those arguments are wrong in both those cases, and I think that
they your argument (if, indeed, that is the position you are taking) is
wrong, too. I do not disagree that stalking is a serious matter which
merits being addressed by the law, and I do not disagree that people have a
right to be protected by the law from being unjustly harrassed. But I do
not believe that legislation designed to acheive those ends can be written,
or enforced, withough being mindful of the potential for undesirable
consequences.
You have given me no reassurance so far that any consideration has been
given to minimising any unintended and undesirable consequences of the
anti-harrassment. Far from it, in fact - you appear to be going out of your
way to insist that these are of no concern whatsoever.
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 11:34:12 AM5/25/14
to
In message <j8p3o998khq3o5sp9...@news.markshouse.net>, at
13:48:17 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
"publicise" a consultation?
>By contrast, the organisations invited to contibute were directly
>informed of it and were specifically asked to contribute.
That's why people who have a special interest in such things really
ought to align themselves with one of those organisations.
--
Roland Perry
13:48:17 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>The government issues lots of consultations. Some of them are more widely
>>>publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
>>>all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
>>
>>How do you know that?
>
>Because it says so in the consultation itself:
>
> This is a consultation to seek the views of key partners, and directly
> affected parties, including the police, practitioners, other government
> departments and organisations with a direct interest in preventing
> stalking.
>
> The consultation is also available on the Home Office website and we also
> invite comments from members of the public.
>
>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/157898/consultation.pdf
>
>The second paragraph doesn't negate the first. Although the pblic were
>invited to comment, insasmuch as they knew about it, the consultation was
>not publicised beyond simply being placed on the Home Office website.
What other measures would you expect the Home Office to employ to
>>>The government issues lots of consultations. Some of them are more widely
>>>publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
>>>all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
>>
>>How do you know that?
>
>Because it says so in the consultation itself:
>
> This is a consultation to seek the views of key partners, and directly
> affected parties, including the police, practitioners, other government
> departments and organisations with a direct interest in preventing
> stalking.
>
> The consultation is also available on the Home Office website and we also
> invite comments from members of the public.
>
>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/157898/consultation.pdf
>
>The second paragraph doesn't negate the first. Although the pblic were
>invited to comment, insasmuch as they knew about it, the consultation was
>not publicised beyond simply being placed on the Home Office website.
"publicise" a consultation?
>By contrast, the organisations invited to contibute were directly
>informed of it and were specifically asked to contribute.
ought to align themselves with one of those organisations.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 11:39:43 AM5/25/14
to
In message <85o3o9pkbla0fica6...@news.markshouse.net>, at
13:40:48 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
move house to avoid it. Did this journalist have to do either?
>You have given me no reassurance so far that any consideration has been
>given to minimising any unintended and undesirable consequences of the
>anti-harrassment. Far from it, in fact - you appear to be going out of your
>way to insist that these are of no concern whatsoever.
You are mistaken if you have that view.
--
Roland Perry
13:40:48 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>On Sun, 25 May 2014 10:50:34 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>In message <anl1o9pbhr27u9d4k...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>>18:30:08 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>I entirely agree that harrassment has a very large number of
>>>>>sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
>>>>>that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
>>>>>of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
>>>>
>>>>Which is why I think the recent revision to the legislation which puts
>>>>many examples of stalking on the face of the Act a very good thing.
>>>
>>>But does it also make it clear that, for example, carrying out the work of
>>>an investigative journalist is not (normally) harrassment?
>>
>>It looks at things from the opposite end of the telescope - the
>>potential effect on the victim, rather than the potential actions of the
>>perpetrators.
>
>Yes, but in this case the journalist *is* the victim, as he is falsely
>being accused of harrassment.
The victims of harassment are forced do things like quit their job or
>On Sun, 25 May 2014 10:50:34 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>In message <anl1o9pbhr27u9d4k...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>>18:30:08 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>I entirely agree that harrassment has a very large number of
>>>>>sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
>>>>>that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
>>>>>of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
>>>>
>>>>Which is why I think the recent revision to the legislation which puts
>>>>many examples of stalking on the face of the Act a very good thing.
>>>
>>>But does it also make it clear that, for example, carrying out the work of
>>>an investigative journalist is not (normally) harrassment?
>>
>>It looks at things from the opposite end of the telescope - the
>>potential effect on the victim, rather than the potential actions of the
>>perpetrators.
>
>Yes, but in this case the journalist *is* the victim, as he is falsely
>being accused of harrassment.
move house to avoid it. Did this journalist have to do either?
>You have given me no reassurance so far that any consideration has been
>given to minimising any unintended and undesirable consequences of the
>anti-harrassment. Far from it, in fact - you appear to be going out of your
>way to insist that these are of no concern whatsoever.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 25, 2014, 11:42:55 AM5/25/14
to
In message <t6p3o95vtdibds8o0...@news.markshouse.net>, at
13:41:38 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
agreed that PINs are not enabled by legislation.
Like a 1950's beat policeman giving a suspected offender a clip round
the ear (which is an assault) they are part of a much wider landscape.
--
Roland Perry
13:41:38 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> They are not supposed to give that impression. The [original] idea was
>>>> more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
>>>> ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
>>>> if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
>>>> really, really, wants you to stop".
>>>
>>>And yet we have the police serving one on Tim Loughton MP
>>
>>I'm not here to defend the police's actions in specific cases.
>
>No, but you are defending the legislation which enables the police to get
>it so obviously and seriously wrong in this case.
Except I thought we'd all (from quite opposite political viewpoints)
>>>> more along the lines of "while you may think that texting your
>>>> ex-girlfriend 50x a day is merely an expression of your love for them,
>>>> if you keep doing it you may prosecuted for harassment because she
>>>> really, really, wants you to stop".
>>>
>>>And yet we have the police serving one on Tim Loughton MP
>>
>>I'm not here to defend the police's actions in specific cases.
>
>No, but you are defending the legislation which enables the police to get
>it so obviously and seriously wrong in this case.
agreed that PINs are not enabled by legislation.
Like a 1950's beat policeman giving a suspected offender a clip round
the ear (which is an assault) they are part of a much wider landscape.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
May 25, 2014, 11:49:19 AM5/25/14
to
On Sun, 25 May 2014 16:34:12 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <j8p3o998khq3o5sp9...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>13:48:17 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>The government issues lots of consultations. Some of them are more widely
>>>>publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
>>>>all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
>>>
>>>How do you know that?
>>
>>Because it says so in the consultation itself:
>>
>> This is a consultation to seek the views of key partners, and directly
>> affected parties, including the police, practitioners, other government
>> departments and organisations with a direct interest in preventing
>> stalking.
>>
>> The consultation is also available on the Home Office website and we also
>> invite comments from members of the public.
>>
>>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/157898/consultation.pdf
>>
>>The second paragraph doesn't negate the first. Although the pblic were
>>invited to comment, insasmuch as they knew about it, the consultation was
>>not publicised beyond simply being placed on the Home Office website.
>
>What other measures would you expect the Home Office to employ to
>"publicise" a consultation?
Put out a few press releases. Try to get the media interested. It may only
make the NIBs, but it's a start.
>>By contrast, the organisations invited to contibute were directly
>>informed of it and were specifically asked to contribute.
>
>That's why people who have a special interest in such things really
>ought to align themselves with one of those organisations.
But what if your special interest is not in line with the focus of those
organisations?
typed:
>In message <j8p3o998khq3o5sp9...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>13:48:17 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>The government issues lots of consultations. Some of them are more widely
>>>>publicised than others. This one appears to have not been publicised at
>>>>all, other than to the people who were invited to contribute to it.
>>>
>>>How do you know that?
>>
>>Because it says so in the consultation itself:
>>
>> This is a consultation to seek the views of key partners, and directly
>> affected parties, including the police, practitioners, other government
>> departments and organisations with a direct interest in preventing
>> stalking.
>>
>> The consultation is also available on the Home Office website and we also
>> invite comments from members of the public.
>>
>>https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/157898/consultation.pdf
>>
>>The second paragraph doesn't negate the first. Although the pblic were
>>invited to comment, insasmuch as they knew about it, the consultation was
>>not publicised beyond simply being placed on the Home Office website.
>
>What other measures would you expect the Home Office to employ to
>"publicise" a consultation?
make the NIBs, but it's a start.
>>By contrast, the organisations invited to contibute were directly
>>informed of it and were specifically asked to contribute.
>
>That's why people who have a special interest in such things really
>ought to align themselves with one of those organisations.
organisations?
Mark Goodge
May 25, 2014, 12:28:46 PM5/25/14
to
On Sun, 25 May 2014 16:39:43 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
But not all. If you're suggesting that it only counts as harrassment if the
victim is forced into such a serious lifestyle change then I think you're
seriously understating the amount of harrassment that takes place.
>>You have given me no reassurance so far that any consideration has been
>>given to minimising any unintended and undesirable consequences of the
>>anti-harrassment. Far from it, in fact - you appear to be going out of your
>>way to insist that these are of no concern whatsoever.
>
>You are mistaken if you have that view.
So what, in your opinion, can be done to minimise the prospect of more
cases like the one described at the start of this thread from occurring?
typed:
>In message <85o3o9pkbla0fica6...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>13:40:48 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>On Sun, 25 May 2014 10:50:34 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>In message <anl1o9pbhr27u9d4k...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>>>18:30:08 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
>>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>I entirely agree that harrassment has a very large number of
>>>>>>sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
>>>>>>that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
>>>>>>of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is why I think the recent revision to the legislation which puts
>>>>>many examples of stalking on the face of the Act a very good thing.
>>>>
>>>>But does it also make it clear that, for example, carrying out the work of
>>>>an investigative journalist is not (normally) harrassment?
>>>
>>>It looks at things from the opposite end of the telescope - the
>>>potential effect on the victim, rather than the potential actions of the
>>>perpetrators.
>>
>>Yes, but in this case the journalist *is* the victim, as he is falsely
>>being accused of harrassment.
>
>The victims of harassment are forced do things like quit their job or
>move house to avoid it. Did this journalist have to do either?
Some victims of harrassment end up having to quit their job or move house.
>In message <85o3o9pkbla0fica6...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>13:40:48 on Sun, 25 May 2014, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>On Sun, 25 May 2014 10:50:34 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
>>typed:
>>
>>>In message <anl1o9pbhr27u9d4k...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>>>18:30:08 on Sat, 24 May 2014, Mark Goodge
>>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>I entirely agree that harrassment has a very large number of
>>>>>>sub-categories, of which stalking is only one (although it's the only one
>>>>>>that has an additional offence all to itself). it would probably help a lot
>>>>>>of the legislation made it easier to distinguish between them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is why I think the recent revision to the legislation which puts
>>>>>many examples of stalking on the face of the Act a very good thing.
>>>>
>>>>But does it also make it clear that, for example, carrying out the work of
>>>>an investigative journalist is not (normally) harrassment?
>>>
>>>It looks at things from the opposite end of the telescope - the
>>>potential effect on the victim, rather than the potential actions of the
>>>perpetrators.
>>
>>Yes, but in this case the journalist *is* the victim, as he is falsely
>>being accused of harrassment.
>
>The victims of harassment are forced do things like quit their job or
>move house to avoid it. Did this journalist have to do either?
But not all. If you're suggesting that it only counts as harrassment if the
victim is forced into such a serious lifestyle change then I think you're
seriously understating the amount of harrassment that takes place.
>>You have given me no reassurance so far that any consideration has been
>>given to minimising any unintended and undesirable consequences of the
>>anti-harrassment. Far from it, in fact - you appear to be going out of your
>>way to insist that these are of no concern whatsoever.
>
>You are mistaken if you have that view.
cases like the one described at the start of this thread from occurring?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages