Cable Forum
Page 72 of 96 « First 226268697071 72 7374757682 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Online Safety Bill Etc (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711643)

RichardCoulter 25-04-2025 18:14
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36195417)
Of course it is.

As has been pointed our multiple times, no action was taken.
One example of a situation where people cannot say whatever they want in private is a situation where two people conspire to rob a bank

Paul 25-04-2025 18:27
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
FYI, it *is* normally illegal to share private groups or conversations without permission, which I'm pretty sure was done in the case referred to.

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36195419)
One example of a situation where people cannot say whatever they want in private is a situation where two people conspire to rob a bank
First of all, yes they can, it would depend on context, it would probably be illegal if they were actually serious and robbed the bank based on the conversation.
Secondly, its irrelevant as no one would know, thats the point of private discussions.

Also, as you well know, thats not the point, you're just grasping for desperate straws here.
You may as well say its illegal to give someone food, its not, unless you poisoned it of course, then it would be.

nomadking 25-04-2025 19:07
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36195417)
Of course it is.

As has been pointed our multiple times, no action was taken.
Quote:
Six police were sent round to the house of the parent who had done this to arrest them. They were held at the police station for eight hours whilst investigations were made.about harrassment & malicious communication.
Not sure I call that "no action". Multiple actions involved.

Sirius 25-04-2025 19:40
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36195422)
Not sure I call that "no action". Multiple actions involved.

And we the public have to pay for that waste of police time. Money that could have been put to much better use. I have said many times and the proof is there for all to see, The offended can accuse anyone of anything now and the police have to waste there time dealing with it.

Russ 25-04-2025 19:44
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36195422)
Not sure I call that "no action". Multiple actions involved.
Not wanting to speak for Paul but I'm sure he meant no further action was taken.

It could have been that they did do/say something that the police deemed broke the Law, but (for whatever reason) felt it wasn't in the public interest to continue. It could have been that the CPS felt there wasn't a realistic prospect of success.

Either way, if there was a case to answer, it would have been weak at best.

Stephen 25-04-2025 21:52
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36195419)
One example of a situation where people cannot say whatever they want in private is a situation where two people conspire to rob a bank
If two people want to discuss that in private they are perfectly free to do so. Nothing illegal about it!

Actually committing the crime of robbing a bank IS illegal though and a crime.

Hugh 25-04-2025 22:02
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36195433)
If two people want to discuss that in private they are perfectly free to do so. Nothing illegal about it!

Actually committing the crime of robbing a bank IS illegal though and a crime.
<cough cough>

Quote:
Conspiracy to commit bank robbery in the UK is defined under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Specifically, the offence occurs when two or more persons agree to pursue a course of conduct that, if carried out in accordance with their intentions, would necessarily amount to or involve the commission of a bank robbery.

Unlike the offence of bank robbery itself, which requires the act of stealing from a bank, conspiracy focuses on the agreement or plan to commit the crime. This means that an offence is committed the moment the agreement is made, even if the bank robbery is never actually attempted or executed.

The law views conspiracy seriously because it is important to intervene in the planning of a severe crime, ensuring as far as possible that crimes are stopped before they can actually take place.

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK ROBBERY OFFENCES IN THE UK?

Planning a heist on a local bank with a group of individuals.
Recruiting others to participate in a bank robbery.
Arranging the logistics for a bank robbery, such as sourcing weapons or getaway vehicles.
Holding meetings to plan the execution of a bank robbery.
Sharing information or providing resources to facilitate a bank robbery.
Collecting intelligence on bank layouts, security systems, or schedules.
Coordinating roles and responsibilities among the group members for the robbery.
Acquiring disguises or fake identities to use during the bank robbery.
Establishing communication methods and codes to avoid detection.
Creating contingency plans to evade law enforcement following the robbery.
Conducting surveillance of potential target banks to identify vulnerabilities.
Pooling financial resources to fund the bank robbery operations.
https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.c...-bank-robbery/

Paul 25-04-2025 22:19
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
an offence is committed the moment the agreement is made
You are perfectly free to discuss it, as long as you dont actually agree to do it.

---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36195422)
Not sure I call that "no action". Multiple actions involved.
Ok, smarty, no final action was taken in relation to the supposed "crimes".

Just the ridiculous OTT reaction at the start.

Stephen 25-04-2025 22:31
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36195434)
If you are just discussing and not planning to actually do it, then no crime is committed.

Plus its in private, who would know.

RichardCoulter 26-04-2025 17:18
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36195438)
If you are just discussing and not planning to actually do it, then no crime is committed.

Plus its in private, who would know.
Have you never heard of people being prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime? If between 2 people the other party may drop the other in it and, if done online, there may be evidence available.

If, as was the case with the school Whattsapp group, there are multiple people in the group, some who you won't know IRL, even though it's a private group, it isn't in reality.

Also, it's not unknown for moles to be planted in various groups to monitor what's being said. The school may have done this or one of the other parents was unhappy with the remarks and reported them to the school.

Stephen 26-04-2025 17:47
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36195485)
Have you never heard of people being prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime? If between 2 people the other party may drop the other in it and, if done online, there may be evidence available.

If, as was the case with the school Whattsapp group, there are multiple people in the group, some who you won't know IRL, even though it's a private group, it isn't in reality.

Also, it's not unknown for moles to be planted in various groups to monitor what's being said. The school may have done this or one of the other parents was unhappy with the remarks and reported them to the school.
Not that WhatsApp chat again.

If two people have a daft conversation about f
Robbing a bank together thee is no conspiracy to commit anything. That's not a crime.

Paul 26-04-2025 18:15
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36195485)
Also, it's not unknown for moles to be planted in various groups to monitor what's being said. The school may have done this or one of the other parents was unhappy with the remarks and reported them to the school.
Its not illegal to be a "secret" member of a private group, but its a lot less legal to any pass private comments/information onto other parties without the consent of the private group members.

jem 26-04-2025 18:36
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
“Its not illegal to be a "secret" member of a private group, but its a lot less legal to any pass private comments/information onto other parties without the consent of the private group members.”

Of course, yes it’s fine to be a ‘secret’ (for whatever that means) member of a private group, presumably someone invited said person into the group (see Pete Hegseth); legal to pass comments onto a third party - is far less legally clear, unless you have signed some kind of agreement not to, then it’s all fair game.

Think about the disclaimers at the bottom of many corporate emails. They will often include ‘this is confidential, if you have received it in error then you must delete and not pass it on.....’; completely legally unenforceable in most circumstances.

But what concerns me more is Richard’s claim that ‘maybe the schools have added moles into private groups’. OK fine, not illegal, but I would have hoped that schools would have more important things to spend money on, like teaching!

GrimUpNorth 26-04-2025 19:37
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36195485)
Have you never heard of people being prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime? If between 2 people the other party may drop the other in it and, if done online, there may be evidence available.

If, as was the case with the school Whattsapp group, there are multiple people in the group, some who you won't know IRL, even though it's a private group, it isn't in reality.

Also, it's not unknown for moles to be planted in various groups to monitor what's being said. The school may have done this or one of the other parents was unhappy with the remarks and reported them to the school.
But the fact still remains (and still ignored by you) that the police decided to take no further action.

RichardCoulter 26-04-2025 22:18
Re: Online Safety Bill
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36195507)
But the fact still remains (and still ignored by you) that the police decided to take no further action.
No, it hasn't. It's been discussed and accepted by all concerned several pages ago.

A complaint was made, it was investigated and subsequently decided that no further action would be taken.

There's nothing untoward about that, though people, including myself, thought it was a bit over zealous to arrest and detain for so many hours.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50.
Page 72 of 96 « First 226268697071 72 7374757682 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum