Prices of the electricity we use to charge

[Ghost1951]

The Chester woman was charged under Section 181 Online Safety Act 2023, sending threatening communications. She pleased guilty. This is a new act has not really been used before , and is quite wide ranging, and definitely there is a risk of it being over-used :

Sending Threatening Communications

Section 181 creates a criminal offence of sending threatening communications. A person is guilty of this offence if they:

1. send a message;
2. conveying a threat of death or serious harm (serious bodily injury, rape, assault by penetration or serious financial loss); and
3.intend (or is reckless as to whether) someone encountering the message will fear that the threat will be carried out (whether by the sender or someone else)

You just beat me to this point you make Peter. I literally just came to this site to post the details you have presented. It is not the act that I had assumed from what I had gleaned elsewhere.

That said, I would still suggest that a) the sentence is far too harsh for what she did and b) that her legal advisers might have made a case that she wasn't reckless at all because such a remark could not be taken as a serious threat by any sensible person. I think it certainly could not be taken seriously. How could anyone who read that have been in a position to blow up any mosque? This is not Afghanistan or some other wild place where people have access to explosives. It's mad.

That said, she was very stupid to post that and she ought to have known better - but 15 months in jail is insane and not fitting a stupid woman's likely drunken post. If she had attacked someone or conspired to have someone attacked that would be a different matter.

Here is the item I was going to post when I spotted your point:

Sending Threatening Communications

Section 181 creates a criminal offence of sending threatening communications. A person is guilty of this offence if they:

1. send a message;
2. conveying a threat of death or serious harm (serious bodily injury, rape, assault by penetration or serious financial loss); and
3. intend (or is reckless as to whether) someone encountering the message will fear that the threat will be carried out (whether by the sender or someone else)

{/quote]

 

[Ghost1951]

This guy tweeted this. If we don't have 2-tier policing, why hasn't he been arrested? It could be considered far more inciting violence and spreading disinformation than any of those guys arrested and charged. It was proved to be complete misinformation by the police, as you can see in the community notes.

https://x.com/lowles_nick/status/1819829746567381197

Then you have the Jess Phillips tweet. She hasn't been arrested either.

That act (online communications) forbids posting anything that is false if the court thinks you knew it was false and intended to cause non trivial harm.

What I want to know is how the court will know what you knew and how they will know what you intended? All of that is in between the sender's ears and no one else can know at all. It will depend on the court coming to a view of what neural impulses were going on inside your brain.

I have not studied this or thought about it enough, but it looks like a dogs breakfast of a law to me. Probably an example of the negative consequences of the "Something MUST be done," response that so many contemptible politicians are so prone to.

The suppression of freedom in this country is completely out of control.

I keep having to say, I do NOT approve of bad behaviour. This time I say, I don't want to see malicious posting, or false news, but where does this stuff stop? When will people just be imprisoned like in Russia when the government decide that their communications and publicly stated opinions are embarrassing and unhelpful and therefore 'harmful' to society?

My grandfather who was almost killed on the Somme, by being shot right through the chest, was always going on about this being, 'a free country'. I lost count of how many times he said it. He fought in that war, and his son my Uncle Tom, was a Royal Marine driving landing craft on D day. My mother, born in 1921, spent four years of WW2 as a wireless operator and teleprinter operator sending coded messages. They would be very uneasy about some of our modern trends here.

Above you will see a statement in bold green. I did that to it as an example of a statement that might land someone in trouble. Might it be judged false? Might it be judged harmful?

Who the fk knows?

Sending false Communications

Section 179 creates a criminal offence of sending false communications. A person is guilty of this offence if they:

1. send a message;
2. conveying information that they know to be false;
3. at the time of sending it they intend the message to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience (i.e. someone who is likely to read it, whether originally or after someone has shared it); and
4. they have no reasonable excuse for sending the message

Section 180 creates an exemption to the offence for recognised news publishers and other various broadcasters. The offence also cannot be committed in connection with showing a film made for cinema to members of the public.

And why are newspapers excluded from this section of the act?

A newspaper can recklessly say anything ( and boy how they do) but you and I can't.

 

[Ghost1951]

Of course, I have heard it said that in Scotland, that jewel of the Enlightenment, you can be sent to Barlinnie for misgendering someone. Those dodgy Olympic women boxer gold medalists are apparently having a go at JK Rowling and someone else for their remarks about 'male' boxers knocking women about. But that is under French Law apparently. I read something about it in the Spectator this morning, but I only skimmed it since the sun was blasting down and i wanted to take my new bike out for a ride.

 

[Peter.Bridge]

I read something about it in the Spectator this morning, but I only skimmed it since the sun was blasting down and i wanted to take my new bike out for a ride.

A very good decision !

 

[Ghost1951]

A very good decision !

There is some very good writing in the Spectator. I commend it to you Peter. Fraser Nelson and Douglas Murray are good, and Lionel Shriver, I like. There is some very good writing on Russia too, maybe not as good as Rosenberg at the BBC though. He is brilliant.

To be fair, there is also some nonsense supporting Trump, but no magazine is perfect. I used to be a subscriber, but stopped it over my irritation at some of its positions. I know you will find it hard to believe that a moderate, and calm fellow like me could get irritated, but I assure you that it is true - I can.

 

[Peter.Bridge]

That act (online communications) forbids posting anything that is false if the court thinks you knew it was false and intended to cause non trivial harm.

What I want to know is how the court will know what you knew and how they will know what you intended.

So the prosecutors will build their case by looking at the pattern of "postings" from that account, asking where the information that was published came from, and why it was considered credible by the account that published it. I suspect this particular provision would only be used for very influential accounts. I did see a lawyer explaining all this somewhere (last year) and it does have the potential for over prosecution, but there were certain scenarios where they thought this would be used .

 

[Ghost1951]

So the prosecutors will build their case by looking at the pattern of "postings" from that account, asking where the information that was published came from, and why it was considered credible by the account that published it. I suspect this particular provision would only be used for very influential accounts. I did see a lawyer explaining all this somewhere (last year) and it does have the potential for over prosecution, but there were certain scenarios where they thought this would be used .

Some time ago, when I first retired, I spent a good number of days attending court proceedings and I was frequently unimpressed by the work rate of those involved (very large numbers of adjournments for no good reason) and some quite strange remarks about the defendants and the circumstances of the events in question. I do not have as great a sense of confidence in the idea that courts and the justice system mostly get things right as I probably thought before that time.
I also fear that the adversarial system unduly leads to people being convicted or acquitted because of the theatrical ability of particular barristers or their lack thereof. Certainly, the fellow I mentioned who had made a threat in the heat of the moment, was badly let down by an incompetent solicitor who for some reason had the right of audience at the trial. The judge also dismissed certain defence positions on the basis of factual errors which he had made in getting to grips with the timing of the events. I felt like standing up and saying so, but thought better of it. The solicitor did not correct these errors. That judge was scathing of the defendant too, which I thought unfair.*** His verdict was overturned however so you might argue that it came out well in the end, but it easily might not have done.

I still don't see how the kind of processes and methods involved are ever going to really get to grips with what people knew and whether they certainly knew what they said or wrote was false when they expressed it. Not 'beyond reasonable doubt,' which of course is the required standard of certainty.

*** Info - the trial was conducted by a District Judge without a jury. Hence - he decided on the verdict on his own. The District Judge in the second trial was a far more reasonable man.

 

[lenny]

America's biggest grocery chain investigated over Uber-style surge pricing

Kroger investigated over Uber-style surge pricing

Senators are investigating the use of electronic price labels on store shelves - to see if store bosses are exploiting shoppers..

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[soundwave]

only god can save us now

 

[Woosh]

The solicitor did not correct these errors.

there may be technical reasons, like preserving ground for appeal.
The more I follow the court cases against Trump, the more I appreciate the skills of the lawyers.

What I want to know is how the court will know what you knew and how they will know what you intended? All of that is in between the sender's ears and no one else can know at all. It will depend on the court coming to a view of what neural impulses were going on inside your brain.

Did she plead guilty in the case above?

 

[Peter.Bridge]

Did she plead guilty in the case above?

Which case ? - Julie Sweeney pleaded guilty under Section 181 of the Online Safety Act 2023,

Section 181 creates a criminal offence of sending threatening communications. A person is guilty of this offence if they:

1. send a message;
2. conveying a threat of death or serious harm (serious bodily injury, rape, assault by penetration or serious financial loss); and
3.intend (or is reckless as to whether) someone encountering the message will fear that the threat will be carried out (whether by the sender or someone else)

There is also

Sending False Communications – Section 179 OSA 2023

Section 179(1) OSA 2023 creates a summary offence of sending false communications. The offence is committed if:

1. a person sends a message (as defined in section 182 OSA 2023);
2. the message conveys information that the person knows to be false;
3. at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience; and
4. the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message.

which could be used , for example, if a high profile account started a rumour (or shared a rumour that they knew to be false) that led to a riot - or they could be charged with the much more serious offence of Publishing written material to stir up racial hatred (S19 of the Public Order Act 1986)

 

[Ghost1951]

Which case ? - Julie Sweeney pleaded guilty under Section 181 of the Online Safety Act 2023,

Section 181 creates a criminal offence of sending threatening communications. A person is guilty of this offence if they:

1. send a message;
2. conveying a threat of death or serious harm (serious bodily injury, rape, assault by penetration or serious financial loss); and
3.intend (or is reckless as to whether) someone encountering the message will fear that the threat will be carried out (whether by the sender or someone else)

There is also

Sending False Communications – Section 179 OSA 2023

Section 179(1) OSA 2023 creates a summary offence of sending false communications. The offence is committed if:

1. a person sends a message (as defined in section 182 OSA 2023);
2. the message conveys information that the person knows to be false;
3. at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience; and
4. the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message.

which could be used , for example, if a high profile account started a rumour (or shared a rumour that they knew to be false) that led to a riot - or they could be charged with the much more serious offence of Publishing written material to stir up racial hatred (S19 of the Public Order Act 1986)

I asked last night how the court would establish in relation to points 2 and 3 of Section 179 whether the person knew something to be false, and whether they intended harm.

There is an assumption in the conception of the offence that other people - the jury, a group of people randomly selected, without specialist knowledge or training, can know what the defendant knows and what he intends'.

In my opinion, such insight is incredibly hard to acquire with the degree of certainty which would meet the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

What i foresee, are performances by smooth tongued lawyers, saying things like, 'Of course Mrs Sweeney 'knew' the statement was false. What reasonable person would not know it?' Then we are thrown back on what I was saying about the influence of theatricality on the decisions of the jury. Whether you are convicted or not, seems to me, sometimes to be as much about how impressive the barristers are as to the actual evidence, especially in a case where the crucial issue is what you knew or what you intended.

 

[Peter.Bridge]

Of course Mrs Sweeney 'knew' the statement was false.

She was charged with a different offence S181 which doesn't require that test.

But if a high profile account made up and published false information that led to public disorder, I think a jury would be entitled to believe that the accused knew it was false

 

[Ghost1951]

Think about this law and how it would apply to an online discussion about the Covid-19 virus taking place a couple of years ago in 2022.

Imagine a participant in this forum on the health and corona virus thread writing that he believed that the virus was semi harmless and that the vaccinations were at least as risky and that in his opinion, he would recommend that they not have them.

Imagine now another participant in the forum reporting this matter to the police and an officer, with a strong steer from government to discourage such opinions, sending a file to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS lawyer, also with a steer from ministers, being mindful of the expert opinion that Covid-19 is extremely dangerous to the old and the immunocompromised, or those with diabetes, and that vaccination is far safer than having the virus, coming to the conclusion that there is plenty of expert evidence that Covid-19 is a serious danger and that everybody knows it and that this person is deliberately causing harm by undermining the government's policy. He then authorises a charge under Section 179 of the Online Communications Act.

I put it to you, that had this law been on the statute books a couple of years ago, a number of people who hang around here could have found themselves in court arguing about what they knew and what they intended.

 

[Ghost1951]

She was charged with a different offence S181 which doesn't require that test.

But if a high profile account made up and published false information that led to public disorder, I think a jury would be entitled to believe that the accused knew it was false

Yes - I was was not referring to that Mrs Sweeney. She pleaded guilty to a different offence relating to urging violent action.

I confused the issue by using that name.

 

[Ghost1951]

If you charge your bike up right now, only 6.7% of the electricity will be generated by fossil fuels.

Your battery will be recharged (say half a kilowatt hour ) with emissions of only 20 grams of co2, which is I think about the same amount as you breathe out in two hours while sitting on a chair.

What's not to like? Get those batteries on charge.

National Grid: Live

Shows the live status of Great Britain’s electric power transmission network

grid.iamkate.com

 

[Peter.Bridge]

Think about this law and how it would apply to an online discussion about the Covid-19 virus taking place a couple of years ago in 2022.

Imagine a participant in this forum on the health and corona virus thread writing that he believed that the virus was semi harmless and that the vaccinations were at least as risky and that in his opinion, he would recommend that they not have them.

Imagine now another participant in the forum reporting this matter to the police and an officer, with a strong steer from government to discourage such opinions, sending a file to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS lawyer, also with a steer from ministers, being mindful of the expert opinion that Covid-19 is extremely dangerous to the old and the immunocompromised, or those with diabetes, and that vaccination is far safer than having the virus, coming to the conclusion that there is plenty of expert evidence that Covid-19 is a serious danger and that everybody knows it and that this person is deliberately causing harm by undermining the government's policy. He then authorises a charge under Section 179 of the Online Communications Act.

I put it to you, that had this law been on the statute books a couple of years ago, a number of people who hang around here could have found themselves in court arguing about what they knew and what they intended.

But there's plenty of covid/vaccine conspiracy theorists posting since that act was passed and none of them have been arrested or charged

 

[Woosh]

Imagine a participant in this forum on the health and corona virus thread writing that he believed that the virus was semi harmless and that the vaccinations were at least as risky and that in his opinion, he would recommend that they not have them.

such opinion was voiced on this forum in the brexit thread at the time.
We discussed the methods of creating the vaccines, use of statistics and yellow cards.

 

[Ghost1951]

But there's plenty of covid/vaccine conspiracy theorists posting since that act was passed and none of them have been arrested or charged

Well we are not any longer in the situation we were back then, or perhaps more accurately in 2020 when we were having daily briefings on TV and bizarre restrictions imposed. The point is that this act COULD be employed to shut down debate, were people in government and the judicial system minded to do it.


I am certainly not in favour of vaccine conspiracy nonsense, but the point is about our freedom to express ourselves. I chose the vaccine /covid thing as an example of how this law can be abused.

 

[Ghost1951]

such opinion was voiced on this forum in the brexit thread at the time.
We discussed the methods of creating the vaccines, use of statistics and yellow cards.

I know. That is why I used the example. The point is, if we had had such a prescription as Section 179 of the Online Communications Act in 2020, someone making the kind of points we are talking about (which I did not agree with by the way) could easily have been arrested and punished.