Re: When one Brenda Leyland just isn't enough for Madeleine McCann's parents: WE'LL REPORT TROLLS TO COPS'

by **Jill Havern** 11.03.17 11:02

When one Brenda Leyland just isn't enough for Madeleine McCann's parents: WE'LL REPORT TROLLS TO COPS' - Page 3 Hagland

Gary Hagland

by puzzled 11.03.17 14:37

nglfi wrote:Perhaps the fact that these stories are appearing as 'stop or we'll sue, we swear' points to the fact that they've already consulted legal advisors who have told them it would be extremely inadvisable to sue. Otherwise we'd be reading stories about the McCanns already having taken out a lawsuit against Jodie Marsh, making an example of a 'troll' etc.
They know they can't and it's pointless.

If this is so, it'll be interesting to see what happens if someone says, "OK, go ahead, sue me".

by jeanmonroe 11.03.17 14:49

puzzled wrote:
nglfi wrote:Perhaps the fact that these stories are appearing as 'stop or we'll sue, we swear' points to the fact that they've already consulted legal advisors who have told them it would be extremely inadvisable to sue. Otherwise we'd be reading stories about the McCanns already having taken out a lawsuit against Jodie Marsh, making an example of a 'troll' etc.
They know they can't and it's pointless.

If this is so, it'll be interesting to see what happens if someone says, "OK, go ahead, sue me".

GO ahead......SUE ME!

Imo, the McCan'ts WON'T 'sue' ANYBODY who 'remembers' more about what's actually IN the 'case files', than they do!

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 11.03.17 20:43

When one Brenda Leyland just isn't enough for Madeleine McCann's parents: WE'LL REPORT TROLLS TO COPS' - Page 3 Gurney10

Seen on facebook.

by plebgate 12.03.17 9:29

Did Brunt volunteer the info. that Brenda contacted him when he appeared at the inquest?

by plebgate 12.03.17 9:32

My question is can a tweet be classed as a malicious communication if it is not sent directly to the people making the complaint?

If Mr & Mrs do not read twitter comments then why on earth are people forwarding the "malicious communications" to them?

by ChippyM 12.03.17 10:10

plebgate wrote:My question is can a tweet be classed as a malicious communication if it is not sent directly to the people making the complaint?

If Mr & Mrs do not read twitter comments then why on earth are people forwarding the "malicious communications" to them?

[quote=Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a "public electronic communications network" a message or other matter that is "grossly offensive" or of an "indecent or obscene character". The same section also provides that it is an offence to send or cause to be sent a false message "for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another". The defendant must either intend the message to be grossly offensive, indecent or obscene or at least be aware that it was so. This can be inferred from the terms of the message or from the defendant's knowledge of the likely recipient (DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40). The offence is committed by sending the message. There is no requirement that any person sees the message or be offended by it.][/quote]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/#a05

yes, I believe it's theoretically possible,
But it would be very hard for them to sue unless the tweets fit into certain categories which are,

1. Communications which may constitute threats of violence
2. Communications which specifically target an individual or individuals and which may constitute harassment or stalking, blackmail etc.
3. Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order or a statutory prohibition.

It's the 4th category that relates to 'obscene' messages ;

"Communications which do not fall into any of the categories above fall to be considered separately i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.
As a general approach, it will usually be in the public interest to prosecute cases falling within Categories 1, 2 or 3, where they satisfy the evidential stage of the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. On the other hand, cases which fall within Category 4 will be subject to a high evidential threshold and in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest."

So your usual, 'we hate the McCanns', 'I think they're neglectful' comments etc. don't really fit into any of these categories, if something was 'offensive' or 'obscene' or false (category 4) , it looks like it's difficult to prove. 'a prosecuton is unlikely'

They won't sue people that are just discussing the evidence, it's all empty threats.

by plebgate 12.03.17 10:20

Thanks ChippyM

Latest topics