Ross and Brand in court, "wesult"!
"(1) Any person who sends to another person
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive
(ii) a threat or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
(2) A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows
(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds and
(b) that he believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2A) In this section 'electronic communication' includes _
(a) any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system(within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c12));
Not long before someone makes a formal complaint to the police I would have thought?"
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand update
Should someone take a read of the following extract from the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Section 1 as amended by Section 43 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. It applies to offences committed from the 11th May 2001 onwards