Oscar

[Yorkie]

I looked at that group photo of 'Victims of Oscar' and saw several convicted criminals. One can well understand why they would not wish their activities to be highlighted, but they should have perhaps considered that more fully before committing the crimes. 

I think you will find that there are many others that you cannot tarnish with the same brush!   Also the ones referred to have already paid their debt to Society and are entitled to the same protection from the law as we all are.
Despite their history they were all willing to put themselves forward and be named in the photograph.   It seems that Oscar had a liking for kicking those who were already down.   The bigger question is why?
 ZXZ

[DaveR]

I looked at that group photo of 'Victims of Oscar' and saw several convicted criminals. One can well understand why they would not wish their activities to be highlighted, but they should have perhaps considered that more fully before committing the crimes. 

I think you will find that there are many others that you cannot tarnish with the same brush!   Also the ones referred to have already paid their debt to Society and are entitled to the same protection from the law as we all are.
Despite their history they were all willing to put themselves forward and be named in the photograph.   It seems that Oscar had a liking for kicking those who were already down.   The bigger question is why?
 ZXZ

Just to clarify your point...you're saying that someone who sets up a blog purely to harass an individual should face the full force of criminal prosecution?

[Yorkie]

I looked at that group photo of 'Victims of Oscar' and saw several convicted criminals. One can well understand why they would not wish their activities to be highlighted, but they should have perhaps considered that more fully before committing the crimes. 

I think you will find that there are many others that you cannot tarnish with the same brush!   Also the ones referred to have already paid their debt to Society and are entitled to the same protection from the law as we all are.
Despite their history they were all willing to put themselves forward and be named in the photograph.   It seems that Oscar had a liking for kicking those who were already down.   The bigger question is why?
 ZXZ

Just to clarify your point...you're saying that someone who sets up a blog purely to harass an individual should face the full force of criminal prosecution?

There is/are specific laws relating to the improper use of the Internet.  Unfortunately at present it is somewhat grey especially as far as harrassment is concerned.  However, when the harrassment degenerates into defamation, or affects a person's life or business, the law is reasonably specific.  Each case has to be considered on its own merits and if required action taken under either the Civil or Criminal Law applicable.
 ZXZ

[DaveR]

Ah, I see. You obviously have researched the matter well. From my own layman's opinion, I would say that that someone who sets up a blog purely to harass a specific individual would be very likely to have committed a criminal offence under Section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

[Dave]

Seem to have hit the wrong button on the last post !
Pojo ...who are you to appear from nowhere?
Guto Bebb should have more on his mind than to worry about criticism from an anonymous poster such was Oscar.
The police I presume have more important things than your reputation to protect and to be honest, I voted for you last time but now..forget it !

From some other people's perspective, it could be suggested that you were in favour of Internet Trolls plaguing innocent people, casting aspertions about them and their families, trying to destroy their reputation and filling the Blogs and Forums with defamatory comments and the like!   Guto Bebb was acting on what he thought was good intelligence when he named those he did, and Oscar himself declared his full involvement with the Thoughts of Oscar Blog. 
Guto was putting his case, not just for himself, but for many of his constituants who had logged complaints with him, as their MP.   More power to his elbow and the VOO group to rid the Intenet of such people and the improper use of the Social Media sites.
 WWW  ZXZ

I certainly don't favour Internet Trolls, Spammers, or anyone using the opportunity to launch personal attacks unless of course they are justified ! It's a very grey area indeed but I guess anyone who sticks his head above the parapet deserves whatever comes his/her way and that includes me when I post on here !
Maybe one of the problems is that we use pseudonyms instead of our real names on many web sites although if you happen to have a common surname you probably can't use it anyway as it's already taken.

[Yorkie]

Ah, I see. You obviously have researched the matter well. From my own layman's opinion, I would say that that someone who sets up a blog purely to harass a specific individual would be very likely to have committed a criminal offence under Section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

You are probably absolutely correct, as you normally are when you see an opportunity to challenge any of my comments, which you do on a very regular basis.

Thank you for allowing me to have my drivel published on your Forum.

[DaveR]

Thank you for allowing me to have my drivel published on your Forum.

You're welcome. 

[Yorkie]

Just to clarify your point...you're saying that someone who sets up a blog purely to harass an individual should face the full force of criminal prosecution?

Back to the question of whether a Blog directed at one individual is harassment.  If a person is sent email and other communications direct to them, harassment could be an issue.  But if it is the form of a Blog for general consumption the person has the option of not reading the contents and harassment would be difficult to prove.  However, if the contents of the Blog were in any way defamatory then there would be a civil case to be answered.
See Protection from Harassment Law 1997
 ZXZ

[Ian]

But if it is the form of a Blog for general consumption the person has the option of not reading the contents and harassment would be difficult to prove.

But the person wouldn't know they were about to be harassed until they'd read the blog, in which case it would be too late.

[wrex]

Thoughts of Yorkie,come on lets have it.

[Yorkie]

But if it is the form of a Blog for general consumption the person has the option of not reading the contents and harassment would be difficult to prove.

But the person wouldn't know they were about to be harassed until they'd read the blog, in which case it would be too late.

Reading just one or two entries would probably be sufficient to give the person an idea of what is on the cards and then they decide whether they want to read more or not.  Harassment is continuous, in the face action where the affected person has little or no chance to escape.  Each case would depend on the evidence presented at the time, and would probably only result in an injunction being served on the offender.

[Yorkie]

Thoughts of Yorkie,come on lets have it.

What a brilliant idea Wrex!  In fact apart from those who who were in the know, there has been much speculation in past years that I was Oscar!  Now the cloak of secrecy has gone I feel rather sad as it was quite fun being accused, well knowing that I was totally innocent of being a contributor to his Thoughts.  Now who shall I start on first? 
 WWW   WWW   WWW

[Michael]

  Barrack room lawyers the lot of you Mike

   P.S.  Now for it --- I've managed to upset both DaveR and Yorkie in the same post. That takes some doing

[DaveR]

But if it is the form of a Blog for general consumption the person has the option of not reading the contents and harassment would be difficult to prove.

But the person wouldn't know they were about to be harassed until they'd read the blog, in which case it would be too late.

Reading just one or two entries would probably be sufficient to give the person an idea of what is on the cards and then they decide whether they want to read more or not.  Harassment is continuous, in the face action where the affected person has little or no chance to escape.  Each case would depend on the evidence presented at the time, and would probably only result in an injunction being served on the offender.

My own view would be that any person setting up a blog to harass someone, in full knowledge of the current legal spotlight upon such matters locally, would almost certainly face criminal charges when they are tracked down. I certainly wouldn't like to be in the shoes of someone running such a blog at the moment and I sincerely hope that no forum member is involved in such a thing.

In the past, there have been various moans on here about why certain conduct, behaviour or activities are not permitted on the Forum. The recent furore will well illustrate why we have always had firm rules, that are to the benefit of all members.

[Ian]

Obviously, I agree with Dave, totally.