happybaboon wrote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3268770/Complaint-to-police-over-cyclists-threat
Nice. Good for that non-cyclist for sticking up for others.

Thanks.

D.

cooper770 wrote:

happybaboon wrote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3268770/Complaint-to-police-over-cyclists-threat
Nice. Good for that non-cyclist for sticking up for others.

Nice yes, but largely pointless as the experts seem to agree that venting on a forum is not illegal unless its directly aimed at an individual.

I made the Police complaint.

You should not rush to judgement as to whether or not it was pointless. Nor should you rush to judgement, as some others have in the media, as to whether the actions were legal or not. It is arguable that a range of offences may have been committed, and just because a particular commentator does not believe the requirements of a specific offence have been satisfied that does not mean the requirements of another offence were not satisfied. Whether or not any offences were committed may ultimately be decided by a Court.

Speaking generally, I am aware of two offences that a person writing vulgar and threatening comments (not directed to any individual) on the Internet is likely to have committed. So anyone thinking that they are free to do so should think again. The question of whether or not those offences have been committed in this particular situation remains to be seen.

D.

forensic wrote:

cooper770 wrote:

happybaboon wrote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3268770/Complaint-to-police-over-cyclists-threat
Nice. Good for that non-cyclist for sticking up for others.

Nice yes, but largely pointless as the experts seem to agree that venting on a forum is not illegal unless its directly aimed at an individual.

I made the Police complaint.

You should not rush to judgement as to whether or not it was pointless. Nor should you rush to judgement, as some others have in the media, as to whether the actions were legal or not. It is arguable that a range of offences may have been committed, and just because a particular commentator does not believe the requirements of a specific offence have been satisfied that does not mean the requirements of another offence were not satisfied. Whether or not any offences were committed may ultimately be decided by a Court.

Speaking generally, I am aware of two offences that a person writing vulgar and threatening comments (not directed to any individual) on the Internet is likely to have committed. So anyone thinking that they are free to do so should think again. The question of whether or not those offences have been committed in this particular situation remains to be seen.

D.

Only saying that's all, I did read it on the interwebby so it must be true surely?? I'm not a lawyer, just rely on them getting it right and the head honcho of such things at Orcland Uni said that was so.....don't claim to be clever about such things but do believe that them who have the letters after their name should know more than me....
Regardless, past seems to show that sweet FA will ever happen until theres a huge societal change of attitude....just saying that's all

znomit wrote:

forensic wrote:I made the Police complaint.

Nice work D.

Yep, good on you.

Although now he's (sort of) apologised I'm inclined to say I think everyone should probably just let the matter rest. The evidence of his internet outburst will remain if he should ever run a cyclist off the road in the future (though I'm sure he'll be on his best behaviour now. And also he'll probably be looking to offload his hummers...... I wonder if they'd make an adequate shuttling vehicle? Actually I bet they're probably gutless pieces of shit when you point them up a hill with a trailer full of sweaty groms on the back)

happybaboon wrote:
Although now he's (sort of) apologised I'm inclined to say I think everyone should probably just let the matter rest.

Agreed.