The Issue
"The Phoenix Post shared a link.
17 minutes ago
Postbag - I'm sure you will understand that we do not want or welcome any attention from those who support those who abuse or harass us.
As you know this - we can only assume you are harassing us on our pages on purpose and that is a crime. Shy Keenan & Sara Payne MBE
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
www.legislation.gov.uk
An Act to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct."
http://www.facebook.com/thephoenixpostuk
****
Comment:
As is often the case, TPP write cheques they are unable to cash.
Here is an excellent review of the case law etc, on this issue ...
www.crimeline.info - Harassment
http://crimeline.info/app/download/5781255292/Harassment.doc
Here is a case, that TPP and others, should bear in mind, before they make public claims, about illegality, on an open FB page ...
First 'Facebook harassment' defendant cleared
27th March 2008 10:45 GMT
"A Birmingham man has been cleared of harassing his ex-girlfriend over Facebook in the first prosecution to specifically cite the social networking website."
"MH, 33, of Edgbaston, was accused of harassing SS under the 1997 Harassment Act."
"Magistrates cleared the theatrical set builder yesterday, saying prosecutors had not proven that he used a Facebook friend request to harass his former partner."
"Chairwoman Catherine Taylor said: "We are of the view the Facebook incident has not been proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. We therefore have to dismiss the charge.""
"The defence argued that by joining the site, she had invited people to get in touch. "You put yourself on Facebook so anyone in the world could have tried to contact you," Howard Joy said."
"And if you did not want them to contact you, you could have just said 'no' to their request."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/27/facebook_birmingham_harassment_cleared/
Facebook 'stalker' cleared of harassment
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/127834-facebook-stalker-cleared-of-harassment
Facebook harassment trial ends in farce as case is thrown out of court
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-547068/Facebook-harassment-trial-ends-farce-case-thrown-court.html#ixzz1uYgku4cT
So, each case on its own merits, of course, but, as we always say, if one does believe that one has a legitimate case, then one should contact the authorities.
Or, in your case, you could 'Just Say No' (via the FB mechanisms, as everyone else does - or, are you, 'a special case'?).
If your alleged suffering is so intense, you could close your pages (however, we would not want that to happen, they are very valuable).
In the case of the OSC, our brief and activities are always reasonable and within the law.
*****
Friday, 11 May 2012
Disinformation In May
10:00PM BST 10 May 2012
Case for snooping powers backfires for Theresa May
"An attempt by Theresa May to defend proposed new snooping powers backfired yesterday when she was contradicted by her own child exploitation experts.
Theresa May says new monitoring powers are needed to protect children.
The Home Secretary told MPs that nine members of a 41-strong international paedophile ring [sic] had never been traced because necessary internet data on them was not available.
She used the case as a reason why the Government plans to force communications providers to retain all phone and internet activity by its users, which can then be accessed by the police and security services.
But within hours of her warning, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) revealed the case was five years old and may have had a different outcome today, regardless of any new powers."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9258261/Case-for-snooping-powers-backfires-for-Theresa-May.html
Case for snooping powers backfires for Theresa May
"An attempt by Theresa May to defend proposed new snooping powers backfired yesterday when she was contradicted by her own child exploitation experts.
Theresa May says new monitoring powers are needed to protect children.
The Home Secretary told MPs that nine members of a 41-strong international paedophile ring [sic] had never been traced because necessary internet data on them was not available.
She used the case as a reason why the Government plans to force communications providers to retain all phone and internet activity by its users, which can then be accessed by the police and security services.
But within hours of her warning, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) revealed the case was five years old and may have had a different outcome today, regardless of any new powers."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9258261/Case-for-snooping-powers-backfires-for-Theresa-May.html
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Vested Interests Cause Logical Failure
May 8, 2012
Sara Payne Supports Opt-In Access to Pornography
"On the one hand, Keenan says that a proportion of sex crimes – including those on children – flow from sexual fantasy and an escalation of tastes in pornography. On the other hand, Payne and Perry emphasise the importance of freedom of choice and so only call for opt-in access for adults.
If the purpose of a block is to protect children from being attacked, like Payne’s own daughter, surely the only logical measure would be an absolute block and the criminalisation of pornography.
Indeed, Payne specifically refers to the child’s moral and emotional protection – but not physical protection. This suggests that what’s important is the preservation of the child’s status as innocent, that somehow they are stained after an attack.
Given that the majority of sex crime victims are female, the need to protect the innocence of the child seems to raise gender issues. It also raises the question as to the moral status of the adult.
Why is it OK to all the adult to be corrupted? After all, it’s because the adult has been corrupted that the attack or abuse occurs in the first place. It seems that the call for opt-in access for adults reflects the economic and social mainstreaming of the sex industry."
http://legalfocus.wordpress.com/tag/sarah-payne
Dizzy Thinks: Blocking porn: just another step on the road to slavery
http://dizzythinks.net/2012/05/blocking-porn-just-another-step-on-road.html
Sara Payne Supports Opt-In Access to Pornography
"On the one hand, Keenan says that a proportion of sex crimes – including those on children – flow from sexual fantasy and an escalation of tastes in pornography. On the other hand, Payne and Perry emphasise the importance of freedom of choice and so only call for opt-in access for adults.
If the purpose of a block is to protect children from being attacked, like Payne’s own daughter, surely the only logical measure would be an absolute block and the criminalisation of pornography.
Indeed, Payne specifically refers to the child’s moral and emotional protection – but not physical protection. This suggests that what’s important is the preservation of the child’s status as innocent, that somehow they are stained after an attack.
Given that the majority of sex crime victims are female, the need to protect the innocence of the child seems to raise gender issues. It also raises the question as to the moral status of the adult.
Why is it OK to all the adult to be corrupted? After all, it’s because the adult has been corrupted that the attack or abuse occurs in the first place. It seems that the call for opt-in access for adults reflects the economic and social mainstreaming of the sex industry."
http://legalfocus.wordpress.com/tag/sarah-payne
Dizzy Thinks: Blocking porn: just another step on the road to slavery
http://dizzythinks.net/2012/05/blocking-porn-just-another-step-on-road.html
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Damning Statistics
12/04/2012 - 16:06
Sexual offences: it’s all in the counting rules
"The NSPCC last week called for action to drastically reduce the number of sexual assaults on children (their split infinitive) after new figures revealed there were more than 400 offences reported to police every week last year (2010-11) with fewer than one in ten resulting in a conviction.
The report led to predictable stories – “Child sex attack every 20 minutes” in the Daily Mail, and a claim in The Sun by campaigner Sara Payne that Britain is “overrun with paedophiles [sic]". A column in The People by Carole Malone asserted that “Britain is now in the grip of a paedophile [sic] epidemic with 23,097 children abused in England and Wales last year.”
"Whether it was wise to change the rules in 2003 is open to question. Perhaps it’s right that any sexual contact with under-13s should be deemed criminal behaviour but it casts the net so wide that it opens the statistics to the abuse of campaigners and well-meaning but poorly-informed [sic] journalists."
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/sexual-offences-it%E2%80%99s-all-counting-rules
Sexual offences: it’s all in the counting rules
"The NSPCC last week called for action to drastically reduce the number of sexual assaults on children (their split infinitive) after new figures revealed there were more than 400 offences reported to police every week last year (2010-11) with fewer than one in ten resulting in a conviction.
The report led to predictable stories – “Child sex attack every 20 minutes” in the Daily Mail, and a claim in The Sun by campaigner Sara Payne that Britain is “overrun with paedophiles [sic]". A column in The People by Carole Malone asserted that “Britain is now in the grip of a paedophile [sic] epidemic with 23,097 children abused in England and Wales last year.”
"Whether it was wise to change the rules in 2003 is open to question. Perhaps it’s right that any sexual contact with under-13s should be deemed criminal behaviour but it casts the net so wide that it opens the statistics to the abuse of campaigners and well-meaning but poorly-informed [sic] journalists."
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/sexual-offences-it%E2%80%99s-all-counting-rules
All For What?
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Death threats to pervert after his child porn arrest
PERVERT JD has received death threats after downloading child porn from the internet.
The threats have been made since the 20-year-old's arrest last August."
"D was arrested on September 5 and in his police interview he admitted downloading and viewing images of children.
He said he was having difficulty with his own sexuality and started viewing the images in March 2010."
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/story-16032055-detail/story.html
Death threats to pervert after his child porn arrest
PERVERT JD has received death threats after downloading child porn from the internet.
The threats have been made since the 20-year-old's arrest last August."
"D was arrested on September 5 and in his police interview he admitted downloading and viewing images of children.
He said he was having difficulty with his own sexuality and started viewing the images in March 2010."
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/story-16032055-detail/story.html
Freedom Of Speech, Further Eroded, For Us All
"The right to freedom of expression is crucial in a democracy. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act safeguards the right to free expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference.
The right to free expression is, however, not absolute – it can be limited to protect the rights of others. Any limitations on the right must be necessary and proportionate, and criminalising even the most unpalatable, illiberal and offensive speech should be approached with grave caution in a democracy."
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech/speech-offences/index.php
This Issue
On the 1st May, 2012, the (ironically-named) Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 received Royal Assent.
Once more, our civil and human rights are further-diluted, by dangerously-crafted legislation.
*****
111 Offences in relation to stalking
(1) After section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (offence of harassment)
*****
1 Prohibition of harassment.
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
2 Offence of harassment.
(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40
*****
insert—
“2A Offence of stalking
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1), and
(b) the course of conduct amounts to stalking.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) (and section 4A(1)(a)) a person’s course of conduct amounts to stalking of another person if—
(a) it amounts to harassment of that person,
(b) the acts or omissions involved are ones associated with stalking, and
(c) the person whose course of conduct it is knows or ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment of the other person.
(3) The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—
(a) following a person,
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material—
(i) relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii) purporting to originate from a person,
(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g) watching or spying on a person.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(5) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (4) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to six months.
(6) This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 2.”
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/111/enacted
*****
Comment:
One only can speculate (but with some accuracy), on how many cases this will set before the courts.
Although there are some protections, under the PHA 1997, Section 1, 3 (a)-(c), legitimate research, reporting and public challenge has now been grossly-jeopardised, in Statute; we suggest there will be many ECHR/HRA cases arising, from this new Act.
The OSC fears no court appearance, for all we do is reasonable, within our mission statement, as provided, above and within Article 10 of The ECoHR.
However, as for the whole of our local (and broader) society, we despair of such actions, particularly, bearing in mind, where the ideas seem to have originated.
*****
The right to free expression is, however, not absolute – it can be limited to protect the rights of others. Any limitations on the right must be necessary and proportionate, and criminalising even the most unpalatable, illiberal and offensive speech should be approached with grave caution in a democracy."
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/free-speech/speech-offences/index.php
This Issue
On the 1st May, 2012, the (ironically-named) Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 received Royal Assent.
Once more, our civil and human rights are further-diluted, by dangerously-crafted legislation.
*****
111 Offences in relation to stalking
(1) After section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (offence of harassment)
*****
1 Prohibition of harassment.
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
2 Offence of harassment.
(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40
*****
insert—
“2A Offence of stalking
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1), and
(b) the course of conduct amounts to stalking.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) (and section 4A(1)(a)) a person’s course of conduct amounts to stalking of another person if—
(a) it amounts to harassment of that person,
(b) the acts or omissions involved are ones associated with stalking, and
(c) the person whose course of conduct it is knows or ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment of the other person.
(3) The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking—
(a) following a person,
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material—
(i) relating or purporting to relate to a person, or
(ii) purporting to originate from a person,
(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g) watching or spying on a person.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(5) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (4) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to six months.
(6) This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 2.”
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/111/enacted
*****
Comment:
One only can speculate (but with some accuracy), on how many cases this will set before the courts.
Although there are some protections, under the PHA 1997, Section 1, 3 (a)-(c), legitimate research, reporting and public challenge has now been grossly-jeopardised, in Statute; we suggest there will be many ECHR/HRA cases arising, from this new Act.
The OSC fears no court appearance, for all we do is reasonable, within our mission statement, as provided, above and within Article 10 of The ECoHR.
However, as for the whole of our local (and broader) society, we despair of such actions, particularly, bearing in mind, where the ideas seem to have originated.
*****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)