At 18:45 and 19:00 on Monday the 5th November 2012, someone texting from 07909 460 333 sent the following messages:
“Your speech at ‘traditional britain’ really scraped the barrel. you spend too much time in mumsie’s basement you child molesting homosexual.”
“You should collect your meds from a real Dr you FRAUD. Else you will be sectioned under the mental health act you faggot fantasist.”
I did think of calling the number, to see if the messages came from the account holder. However, I have decided not to bother. I suppose I could go to the plod. But, since I don’t believe the relevant laws should exist, that might be a touch hypocritical. I give the relevant laws below, but prefer just to publicise the messages and the alleged number of the texter.
The Laws Apparently Broken (Not described in my own words)
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
The Malicious Communications Act 1998
The Communications Act 2003
How these Acts can be related to bullying, and specifically to cyberbullying, is outlined below. If the bullying is based on sexual, racial or religious grounds, prosecution could be sought through anti-discriminatory laws.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
This Act was passed following concerns that stalking was not dealt with effectively under the existing legislation. The Act does not refer solely to stalking but also covers harassment in a wider sense. The Act states that it is unlawful to cause harassment, alarm or distress by a course of conduct and states that ‘A person must not pursue a course of conduct, which:
- amounts to harassment of another
- he knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of the other.’
There is some anecdotal evidence that the police are more comfortable in bringing forward this law when dealing with issues of cyberbullying. The police have successfully used the Protection from Harassment Act to prosecute for the sending of offensive e-mails through the internet. Such messages will also constitute an offence under the Malicious Communications Act.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
This Act defines a criminal offence of intentional harassment, which covers all forms, including sexual harassment. A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he/she
- uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour; or
- displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
- Malicious Communications Act 1998/Telecommunications Act 1984
- Under this Act it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person. Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent, offensive or threatening.
Both these offences are punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine.
The Malicious Communications offences are wider ranging, but under the Telecommunications offences, it is likely that the Police will use the former Act to bring a charge.
The Communications Act 2003
The Communications Act 2003 is by far the most recent Act to be passed. Section 127 states that a person is guilty of an offence if he/she
- sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
- causes any such message or matter to be so
- A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he/she knows to be false,
- causes such a message to be sent; or
- persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Powered by YARPP.
It is a real number. I sent a text back a few minutes ago, notifying the texter that his texts and telephone number had been copied to the Blog. He sent back as follows:
“gabby. No go collect you tea n biscuits from mumsie’s kitchen table like a good sissie.”
Some people are very unwise.
He’s surely breaking half a dozen laws relating to homophobia too. If you report this to your local plod, they’ll be too busy to investigate any burglaries in your area for the next month – come to think of it, maybe your correspondent is a very cunning burglar planning a break-in spree in your neighbourhood.
It’s a T-Mobile number I think. (T-Mobile have now merged networks with Orange). Your mobile phone company can block the number for you. And T-mobile might be interested as well (though I expect it’s a PAYG unless they are really stupid).
I’d go to the plod, me, if it was me, specially as you have women and children. True, we abhor those laws as good libertarians – however, nobody said that in war you refuse to pick up the enemy’s weapons and lunge at him with same.
Also, it’ll be interesting to see if the plod act on this one at all, since you are the most high-profile libertarian in Britain, and we are, as is natural, unpopular as a cause.
The clown has made no direct threat so best to ignore him. Interacting with creeps creates a connection which often what is wanted. Get his number blocked and invest a few bob in the book “The Gift of Fear” by one Gavin De Becker. It is the best source of guidence in these matters.
Sticks and stones, as Judge judy would say. Ignore him. Don’t dignify him with a response – you’re unlikely to get into a rational debate with him..
What a hysterical reaction Gabby. Mumsie will not be impressed that her wee Gabby has behaved in such a hypocritical Politically Correct way.
Mumsie will administer a dose of the cane for wee Gabby and send him back to the basement with bread and milk. Poor pathetic little pansy.
The ‘plod` cant do a damned thing. Gobby Gabby resorts to churlish tactics worthy of DPRK Communists in a pathetic attempt to silence any opposition. Crying like a schoolboy “help me government please” akin to his crying out for mumsie dearest. Gabby is indeed a one-nation Socialist Imposter.
I think it would be quite amusing to see this troll hoisted by his own petard.
Since Sean Gabb has stated that he does not intend to go to the State, it is a bit odd that ‘Reactionary logic’ accuses him of ‘crying’ to the State to silence and punish anyone.
I can only surmise from ‘Reactionary logic’s’ grammar, spelling and logic, that he is a mental and moral defective.
Reactionary Logic speaks a certain truth to power. Sean Gabb is indeed a hypocrite, opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (ever the apologist for Jihadist Muslims) whilst supporting white minority rule in the former Rhodesia and South Africa. Then he has the effrontery to stand up at the Traditional Britain meeting and call for “Majority rights”. There isnt even a single Darkie in the cabinet now that “Baroness” Warsi has been kicked out. London is choc (no pun intended) full of Darkies of all varieties worthy of a tin of Quality street (as a simple ride on a tube carriage can attest to), yet the Mayor, his advisors and the London assembly (a massive bureaucratic machine) are as White as pure driven snow and the Milky Bar kid (yes that was Mayor Boris many years ago). If Whites (such as the egregious Sean Gabb) in Britain wish to launch into a Schizophrenic rant about “Tyranny” and “oppression” I suggest they focus on those in power…..because the inconvenient truth is that none of those in power are “Darkies”.
The language was weird (as well as offensive).
However, to start quoting statutes at people is not a good response. No doubt you yourself have broken all sorts of statutes Sean.
This is Britain – there is a statute against almost everything. So to say “you have broken the law” carries no moral weight – to say “this person has done wrong” (as this “texter” clearly has) is more important.
There would be nothing hypocritical about Sean Gabb going to the police. Britain is a state where the individual is deprived of just about any right to self-defense, so he must look to the state which has left him in this helpless position when he is under threat.
Rob – I think a punch on the nose would be a better response to this sort of stuff.
Morally speaking, yes. But tactically a very bad idea with your friend Mr Plod on the lookout for just some such foolishness. A solid (ish–in Sean’s case) citizen defending himself—Oh Dear me.
Mind how you go.
I had not thought of that Mr Ecks.
I have no solution.
Sounds more of a case for a psychiatrist than plod. But doesn’t Epicurus say that a quiet life that attracts no enemies is one of the keys to happiness? If you put happiness before truth, follow Epicurus. If not, this kind of thing will happen and it is, in its way, a tribute to what you’re doing.
I am sort of hoping that, for Sean’s sake, “this will all blow over” (as we say over here in Blightly.)
This attitude sort of implies that, from time to time, stormy stuff comes around, as is the nature of evil and wickedness, and pushes people about.
I’m actually rather surprised that Sean, especially, has not been threatened earlier, knowing – as we all agree that we do from the age of six upwards – the unutterable depths of evil and wickedness and irremediable nastiness that lurks, all unseen but institutionally-present, in all the hearts of all socialists and all FabiaNazis the world over. And specially in Britain, the home of liberalism and therefore the inevitable and correct prime target for destruction, in the strategically-focussed-GramscoFabiaNazi-mind.
It’s rather imposrtant to note that the “threateners” all seem, always and since God was in Short Trousers, to be on the “left”. Therefore, whe driving along, in England, keep your sword on the left of your belt, so you can draw it with your right hand. Then you will be OK.
Well Sean’s novels do tend to be set in the late Roman period – and by that time Romans did tend to wear their swords on the left. The longer (originally cavalry) sword being the norm in the late period.
I detest the late period (perhaps Sean and myself can not agree on anything) – but, yes, for individual (as opposed to unit) combat, the late Roman, wear on the left, practice is better.
Actually, perhaps Sean detests the late period also – but reasons that most readers will find it more interesting.