In message <u0a0o3$21rd5$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:30:11 on Sat, 1 Apr
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 01/04/2023 18:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <u09eru$1uir7$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:25:02 on Sat, 1 Apr
>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 01/04/2023 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> "The DVLA is entitled to carry out, and frequently does, criminal
>>>>> prosecutions in the Magistrates Court for certain offences. The most
>>>>> common of these offences is failing to notify the DVLA of a change of
>>>>> keeper for a vehicle."
>>>>> [https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/srvmotoring/failing_to_n
>>>>> otify_dvla/]
>>>>> The current penalty seems to be a fine of up to 1000 pounds.
>>
>>>>  And yet few people are prosecuted, and frankly no-one knows how
>>>>long you  can be in temporary accommodation before it kicks in. I
>>>>was once in a  hotel for two weeks in such circumstances (furniture
>>>>in storage), should  I have informed DVLA?
>>>
>>> Temporary accomodation can be for as long as you like providing your
>>>permanent address is still valid, cf students at uni.

>> I'm glad you brought that up: there's a school of thought which says
>>that students at uni should re-declare their accommodation (especially
>>if private rented) as their residence for the duration of their stay.
>>Typically only a year, but I know post-grads are more likely to stay
>>in the same property multiple years.
>
>As far as the DVLA are concerned they just need an address to send the
>speeding tickets and other summons to.

Which is why as I've replied to others, they are relatively relaxed
about it being strictly the place you lay your head.

>So in the case of your sojourn between moves I assume you had set up a
>mail redirect to cover that period which should have been acceptable to
>the DVLA.

Probably not. I'd have told the person who bought my house my new
permanent address, and the people owning the house I was going to move
into knew of my impending arrival (odd that, exchanging contracts etc
etc) and would have simply made a pile of it.

Getting around to a formal Royal Mail redirection would be something to
arrange later, because don't they require some collateral information
that you are you, and redirecting it to somewhere you can fsvo prove you
live?
--
Roland Perry

On 02/04/2023 07:23, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <u0a0o3$21rd5$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:30:11 on Sat, 1 Apr
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 01/04/2023 18:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <u09eru$1uir7$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:25:02 on Sat, 1 Apr
>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 01/04/2023 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> "The DVLA is entitled to carry out, and frequently does, criminal
>>>>>> prosecutions in the Magistrates Court for certain offences. The most
>>>>>> common of these offences is failing to notify the DVLA of a change of
>>>>>> keeper for a vehicle."
>>>>>> [https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/srvmotoring/failing_to_n
>>>>>> otify_dvla/]
>>>>>> The current penalty seems to be a fine of up to 1000 pounds.
>>>
>>>>>  And yet few people are prosecuted, and frankly no-one knows how
>>>>> long  you  can be in temporary accommodation before it kicks in. I
>>>>> was once  in a  hotel for two weeks in such circumstances
>>>>> (furniture in  storage), should  I have informed DVLA?
>>>>
>>>> Temporary accomodation can be for as long as you like providing your
>>>> permanent address is still valid, cf students at uni.
>
>>>  I'm glad you brought that up: there's a school of thought which says
>>> that students at uni should re-declare their accommodation
>>> (especially if private rented) as their residence for the duration of
>>> their stay. Typically only a year, but I know post-grads are more
>>> likely to stay in  the same property multiple years.
>>
>> As far as the DVLA are concerned they just need an address to send the
>> speeding tickets and other summons to.
>
> Which is why as I've replied to others, they are relatively relaxed
> about it being strictly the place you lay your head.
>
>> So in the case of your sojourn between moves I assume you had set up a
>> mail redirect to cover that period which should have been acceptable
>> to the DVLA.
>
> Probably not. I'd have told the person who bought my house my new
> permanent address, and the people owning the house I was going to move
> into knew of my impending arrival (odd that, exchanging contracts etc
> etc) and would have simply made a pile of it.
>
> Getting around to a formal Royal Mail redirection would be something to
> arrange later, because don't they require some collateral information
> that you are you, and redirecting it to somewhere you can fsvo prove you
> live?

Not the last time I did it just told them the redirect address and off
they went and did it.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <u0beab$2cvl3$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:27:55 on Sun, 2 Apr
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 02/04/2023 07:23, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <u0a0o3$21rd5$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:30:11 on Sat, 1 Apr
>>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 01/04/2023 18:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <u09eru$1uir7$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:25:02 on Sat, 1
>>>>Apr 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 01/04/2023 12:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> "The DVLA is entitled to carry out, and frequently does, criminal
>>>>>>> prosecutions in the Magistrates Court for certain offences. The most
>>>>>>> common of these offences is failing to notify the DVLA of a change of
>>>>>>> keeper for a vehicle."
>>>>>>> [https://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/individuals/srvmotoring/failing_to_n
>>>>>>> otify_dvla/]
>>>>>>> The current penalty seems to be a fine of up to 1000 pounds.
>>>>
>>>>>>  And yet few people are prosecuted, and frankly no-one knows how
>>>>>>long  you  can be in temporary accommodation before it kicks in. I
>>>>>>was once  in a  hotel for two weeks in such circumstances
>>>>>>(furniture in  storage), should  I have informed DVLA?
>>>>>
>>>>> Temporary accomodation can be for as long as you like providing
>>>>>your permanent address is still valid, cf students at uni.
>>
>>>>  I'm glad you brought that up: there's a school of thought which
>>>>says that students at uni should re-declare their accommodation
>>>>(especially if private rented) as their residence for the duration
>>>>of their stay. Typically only a year, but I know post-grads are
>>>>more likely to stay in  the same property multiple years.
>>>
>>> As far as the DVLA are concerned they just need an address to send
>>>the speeding tickets and other summons to.
>> Which is why as I've replied to others, they are relatively relaxed
>>about it being strictly the place you lay your head.
>>
>>> So in the case of your sojourn between moves I assume you had set up
>>>a mail redirect to cover that period which should have been
>>>acceptable to the DVLA.
>> Probably not. I'd have told the person who bought my house my new
>>permanent address, and the people owning the house I was going to move
>>into knew of my impending arrival (odd that, exchanging contracts etc
>>etc) and would have simply made a pile of it.
>> Getting around to a formal Royal Mail redirection would be something
>>to arrange later, because don't they require some collateral
>>information that you are you, and redirecting it to somewhere you can
>>fsvo prove you live?
>
>Not the last time I did it just told them the redirect address and off
>they went and did it.

"For your security, to apply online your payment card must be registered
at your old or new address. If your card is registered at your new
address you will need to answer some additional security questions. All
payment cards must be issued in the UK."
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 12:21:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <fd552i972gsicoonko7o8h7qppb9tf2idv@4ax.com>, at 08:38:52 on
>Tue, 28 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:28:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <q94p1i90tkfisnpkcta3da373ag9n02jvs@4ax.com>, at 17:50:04 on
>>>Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:08:32 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <a5mm1i9i5n7ubvk7kv1f5te8pvv0qnsukq@4ax.com>, at 19:36:36 on
>>>>>Wed, 22 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:22:58 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <sc4f1i5cpoibq4kbdud7kqadkleg2hvu84@4ax.com>, at 22:55:18 on
>>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
>>>>>>>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>>01:32:49 on
>>>>>>>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the card issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to take careful steps to make sure the person applying is who they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>say they are. A Scotrail photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>uploads a photo and types in a name on the website.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>>>>>>>>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>>>>>>>>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>>>>>>>>>>be non-existent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't
>>>>>>>>>>>feature on
>>>>>>>>>>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>>>>>>>>>>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>>>>>>>>>>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>>>>>>>>>>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>>>>>>>>>>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>>>>>>>>>>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>>>>>>>>>>that doesn't need solving.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
>>>>>>>>>to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
>>>>>>>>>are about the non-problem of people who might.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>When it draws criticism from across the media ranging from the Morning
>>>>>>>>Star to the Daily Express and others in between then there is clearly
>>>>>>>>something widely regarded as wrong with voter ID and that there is not
>>>>>>>>a "non-problem".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They should have spoken up years ago, not now it's a done deal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Heavens above, you make Remoaners look like angels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>What has it got to do with the EU?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not the EU, but people who have been given that name as a result of a
>>>>>perception they can't accept that a different ship has sailed.
>>>>>
>>>>Ships often return.
>>>
>>>That's actually one of the good things about Brussels. Ships there *do*
>>>have scheduled returns, typically every ten years. Whereas in the UK not
>>>only is there no such formal schedule, but twenty years is the best we
>>>seem to be able to manage most of the time.
>>>
>>>Apart from various laws regarding public order and vehicular traffic,
>>>where we are still stuck with legislation from Queen Victoria's time.
>>>
>>See also "If it ain't broke then don't fix it." Magistrates' Courts
>>have no trouble working daily with 14th century legislation.
>>
>>The oldest Public Order Act only dates from 1936 and none of the 3
>>surviving sections of the Highway Act 1835 survives in unamended form
>>while the next oldest Highway Act is only from 1959.
>
>When I did a study (which resulted in my writing a Draft Private Members
>Bill) of offences which needed to be brought up to date in the digital
>era, the oldest was:
>
>Offences against the Person Act 1861, section 16, 20, 39, 47
>
s.39 looks like it might now be superfluous and unnecessarily specific
but what is wrong with the others ?

>Next oldest were:
>
>Theft Act 1968, section 21
>
Too lenient?

>Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 2
>
?

>Or should we count:
>
>Suicide Act 1961 section 2(1) as amended by Coroners and Justice Act
>2009
>
The Act or rather the concept of the event (without further
qualification) being criminal?

>(There were another 26)
>
"Digital age" as in an association with technology/communications or
just "modern times" ?

On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 17:56:20 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 28/03/2023 09:00, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> The delivery office is the final sorting office that incoming mail
>> goes into one stream thus the logical place to intercept items for
>> diversion.
>
>
>I was told some time ago that mail can be sent quite a long distance for
>sorting. Even local mail can sometimes be sorted a long way away.
>
>I think it depends on the location and availability of the sorting
>machinery.
>
It can go a long way and for a variety of reasons such as an office
being out of action or an area being temporarily overwhelmed. There
was a fuss a few years ago involving mail being flown from Scotland to
England and back for local sorting which ISTR was never fully
explained but probably involved management incompetence somewhere if
they didn't want to say what caused it.

On 04/04/2023 01:36, Charles Ellson wrote:
> It can go a long way and for a variety of reasons such as an office
> being out of action or an area being temporarily overwhelmed. There
> was a fuss a few years ago involving mail being flown from Scotland to
> England and back for local sorting which ISTR was never fully
> explained but probably involved management incompetence somewhere if
> they didn't want to say what caused it.

I was told a few years ago that the local sorting office closes around
1730h and everything is then sent to Inverness, they did not work
overnight so later everything was sent down to Perth for sorting.

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 21:32:05 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 04/04/2023 01:36, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> It can go a long way and for a variety of reasons such as an office
>> being out of action or an area being temporarily overwhelmed. There
>> was a fuss a few years ago involving mail being flown from Scotland to
>> England and back for local sorting which ISTR was never fully
>> explained but probably involved management incompetence somewhere if
>> they didn't want to say what caused it.
>
>I was told a few years ago that the local sorting office closes around
>1730h and everything is then sent to Inverness, they did not work
>overnight so later everything was sent down to Perth for sorting.
>
That seems quite feasible. It would enable at least some some items
for more local delivery to be held back and others to be bundled with
PH just a staging point.

On 05/04/2023 22:40, Charles Ellson wrote:
> That seems quite feasible. It would enable at least some some items
> for more local delivery to be held back and others to be bundled with
> PH just a staging point.

I think I was told that they separate out local item up to a certain
time, after that it all sent way to be machine sorted. THere seem to be
only limited number of the automatic sorting machines at the very large
sites.

Not sure what the current ones I like, I saw ALF and ELSIE many years ago!

On 05/04/2023 23:05, MB wrote:
> On 05/04/2023 22:40, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> That seems quite feasible. It would enable at least some some items
>> for more local delivery to be held back and others to be bundled with
>> PH just a staging point.
>
>
> I think I was told that they separate out local item up to a certain
> time, after that it all sent way to be machine sorted.  THere seem to be
> only limited number of the automatic sorting machines at the very large
> sites.
>
> Not sure what the current ones I like, I saw ALF and ELSIE many years ago!
>

With the introduction of accurate character recognition they don't need
phosphor dots anymore.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 07:36:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 05/04/2023 23:05, MB wrote:
>> On 05/04/2023 22:40, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> That seems quite feasible. It would enable at least some some items
>>> for more local delivery to be held back and others to be bundled with
>>> PH just a staging point.
>>
>>
>> I think I was told that they separate out local item up to a certain
>> time, after that it all sent way to be machine sorted.  THere seem to be
>> only limited number of the automatic sorting machines at the very large
>> sites.
>>
>> Not sure what the current ones I like, I saw ALF and ELSIE many years ago!
>>
>
>With the introduction of accurate character recognition they don't need
>phosphor dots anymore.
>
OCR can only manage so much but a clear postcode tends to make nearly
everything else apart from the house number surplus.
There was a long period of letters arriving with 3" long thin red bar
codes (matching the style and position of black ones on some
pre-printed envelopes/labels) but those seem to have gone away now.

In message <4vqm2ilcotd70jo48771okn60hsnvsdpun@4ax.com>, at 01:22:19 on
Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:

>>When I did a study (which resulted in my writing a Draft Private Members
>>Bill) of offences which needed to be brought up to date in the digital
>>era, the oldest was:
>>
>>Offences against the Person Act 1861, section 16, 20, 39, 47
>>
>s.39 looks like it might now be superfluous and unnecessarily specific
>but what is wrong with the others ?

16: Threats to kill being sent by email/social media etc
39: Threats of violence being sent by email/social media etc

The other two, I'd have to consult my notes.

>>Next oldest were:
>>
>>Theft Act 1968, section 21
>>
>Too lenient?

Making demands by email/social media etc

>>Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 2
>>
>?

Threats being sent by email/social media.

[Can you see a pattern here?]

>>Or should we count:
>>
>>Suicide Act 1961 section 2(1) as amended by Coroners and Justice Act
>>2009
>>
>The Act or rather the concept of the event (without further
>qualification) being criminal?

Websites encourging people to commit suicide. (This is one of the few
which has gained independent attention recently)

>>(There were another 26)
>>
>"Digital age" as in an association with technology/communications or
>just "modern times" ?

The point being, that a *consolidation* was required (still is) so that
at the very least it's clear that activity via The Internet is included
(as well as activity in person).
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 13:26:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <4vqm2ilcotd70jo48771okn60hsnvsdpun@4ax.com>, at 01:22:19 on
>Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>
>>>When I did a study (which resulted in my writing a Draft Private Members
>>>Bill) of offences which needed to be brought up to date in the digital
>>>era, the oldest was:
>>>
>>>Offences against the Person Act 1861, section 16, 20, 39, 47
>>>
>>s.39 looks like it might now be superfluous and unnecessarily specific
>>but what is wrong with the others ?
>
>16: Threats to kill being sent by email/social media etc
>
A threat to kill is a threat to kill. If e-mail then it is also a
malicious communication which IIRC carries the same penalties.

>39: Threats of violence being sent by email/social media etc
>
See above.

>The other two, I'd have to consult my notes.
>
>>>Next oldest were:
>>>
>>>Theft Act 1968, section 21
>>>
>>Too lenient?
>
>Making demands by email/social media etc
>
If it is trying to enforce a debt which is not due then that is
covered by other law/legislation (one of the Administration of Justice
Acts).

>>>Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 2
>>>
>>?
>
>Threats being sent by email/social media.
>
See above.

>[Can you see a pattern here?]
>
>>>Or should we count:
>>>
>>>Suicide Act 1961 section 2(1) as amended by Coroners and Justice Act
>>>2009
>>>
>>The Act or rather the concept of the event (without further
>>qualification) being criminal?
>
>Websites encourging people to commit suicide. (This is one of the few
>which has gained independent attention recently)
>
The current version of s.2(1) only dates from 2009 and looks like
suitable updating.

>>>(There were another 26)
>>>
>>"Digital age" as in an association with technology/communications or
>>just "modern times" ?
>
>The point being, that a *consolidation* was required (still is) so that
>at the very least it's clear that activity via The Internet is included
>(as well as activity in person).
>
The danger with consolidating is that you could narrow the range of
events being defined as criminal. Otherwise, there can often be more
than one way of dealing with bad behaviour.

In message <jua13ip5etkss3n8dlsg90402489gm8tnh@4ax.com>, at 01:06:46 on
Sat, 8 Apr 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 13:26:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <4vqm2ilcotd70jo48771okn60hsnvsdpun@4ax.com>, at 01:22:19 on
>>Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>When I did a study (which resulted in my writing a Draft Private Members
>>>>Bill) of offences which needed to be brought up to date in the digital
>>>>era, the oldest was:
>>>>
>>>>Offences against the Person Act 1861, section 16, 20, 39, 47
>>>>
>>>s.39 looks like it might now be superfluous and unnecessarily specific
>>>but what is wrong with the others ?
>>
>>16: Threats to kill being sent by email/social media etc
>>
>A threat to kill is a threat to kill. If e-mail then it is also a
>malicious communication which IIRC carries the same penalties.
>
>>39: Threats of violence being sent by email/social media etc
>>
>See above.
>
>>The other two, I'd have to consult my notes.
>>
>>>>Next oldest were:
>>>>
>>>>Theft Act 1968, section 21
>>>>
>>>Too lenient?
>>
>>Making demands by email/social media etc
>>
>If it is trying to enforce a debt which is not due then that is
>covered by other law/legislation (one of the Administration of Justice
>Acts).
>
>>>>Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 2
>>>>
>>>?
>>
>>Threats being sent by email/social media.
>>
>See above.
>
>>[Can you see a pattern here?]
>>
>>>>Or should we count:
>>>>
>>>>Suicide Act 1961 section 2(1) as amended by Coroners and Justice Act
>>>>2009
>>>>
>>>The Act or rather the concept of the event (without further
>>>qualification) being criminal?
>>
>>Websites encourging people to commit suicide. (This is one of the few
>>which has gained independent attention recently)
>>
>The current version of s.2(1) only dates from 2009 and looks like
>suitable updating.
>
>>>>(There were another 26)
>>>>
>>>"Digital age" as in an association with technology/communications or
>>>just "modern times" ?
>>
>>The point being, that a *consolidation* was required (still is) so that
>>at the very least it's clear that activity via The Internet is included
>>(as well as activity in person).
>>
>The danger with consolidating is that you could narrow the range of
>events being defined as criminal.

The Consolidation Bill wouldn't repeal the old legislation, because it's
still required for non-online transgressions.

Indeed, the WHOLE point of a review is that it would include new
modalities to WIDEN the range of circumstances where an offence
could be considered to have been committed.

See for example the "Upskirting" law, which as it happens while I am
not in favour of appeasing that activity, I'm quite sure that the even
greater Balkanization it introduces is unhelpful.

Meanwhile, by way of illustration (from scores of examples) one of my
proposals was to extend the reach of the Malicious Communications Act
(aka poison pen letter law) by removing the filter of "believed to be
false" because in some circumstances telling the truth (or even
something you wrongly believe to be the truth - aka "fake news") can be
harmful.

>Otherwise, there can often be more than one way of dealing with bad
>behaviour.

The other danger is that with fifty different "other ways" to deal with
bad behaviour, it's often difficult to pin the tail on the right donkey.
And having one law which tries to summarise it all, between one set of
covers, is usually regarded as helpful.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 07:36:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <jua13ip5etkss3n8dlsg90402489gm8tnh@4ax.com>, at 01:06:46 on
>Sat, 8 Apr 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 13:26:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <4vqm2ilcotd70jo48771okn60hsnvsdpun@4ax.com>, at 01:22:19 on
>>>Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>When I did a study (which resulted in my writing a Draft Private Members
>>>>>Bill) of offences which needed to be brought up to date in the digital
>>>>>era, the oldest was:
>>>>>
>>>>>Offences against the Person Act 1861, section 16, 20, 39, 47
>>>>>
>>>>s.39 looks like it might now be superfluous and unnecessarily specific
>>>>but what is wrong with the others ?
>>>
>>>16: Threats to kill being sent by email/social media etc
>>>
>>A threat to kill is a threat to kill. If e-mail then it is also a
>>malicious communication which IIRC carries the same penalties.
>>
>>>39: Threats of violence being sent by email/social media etc
>>>
>>See above.
>>
>>>The other two, I'd have to consult my notes.
>>>
>>>>>Next oldest were:
>>>>>
>>>>>Theft Act 1968, section 21
>>>>>
>>>>Too lenient?
>>>
>>>Making demands by email/social media etc
>>>
>>If it is trying to enforce a debt which is not due then that is
>>covered by other law/legislation (one of the Administration of Justice
>>Acts).
>>
>>>>>Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 2
>>>>>
>>>>?
>>>
>>>Threats being sent by email/social media.
>>>
>>See above.
>>
>>>[Can you see a pattern here?]
>>>
>>>>>Or should we count:
>>>>>
>>>>>Suicide Act 1961 section 2(1) as amended by Coroners and Justice Act
>>>>>2009
>>>>>
>>>>The Act or rather the concept of the event (without further
>>>>qualification) being criminal?
>>>
>>>Websites encourging people to commit suicide. (This is one of the few
>>>which has gained independent attention recently)
>>>
>>The current version of s.2(1) only dates from 2009 and looks like
>>suitable updating.
>>
>>>>>(There were another 26)
>>>>>
>>>>"Digital age" as in an association with technology/communications or
>>>>just "modern times" ?
>>>
>>>The point being, that a *consolidation* was required (still is) so that
>>>at the very least it's clear that activity via The Internet is included
>>>(as well as activity in person).
>>>
>>The danger with consolidating is that you could narrow the range of
>>events being defined as criminal.
>
>The Consolidation Bill wouldn't repeal the old legislation, because it's
>still required for non-online transgressions.
>
>Indeed, the WHOLE point of a review is that it would include new
>modalities to WIDEN the range of circumstances where an offence
>could be considered to have been committed.
>
>See for example the "Upskirting" law, which as it happens while I am
>not in favour of appeasing that activity, I'm quite sure that the even
>greater Balkanization it introduces is unhelpful.
>
>Meanwhile, by way of illustration (from scores of examples) one of my
>proposals was to extend the reach of the Malicious Communications Act
>(aka poison pen letter law) by removing the filter of "believed to be
>false" because in some circumstances telling the truth (or even
>something you wrongly believe to be the truth - aka "fake news") can be
>harmful.
>
>>Otherwise, there can often be more than one way of dealing with bad
>>behaviour.
>
>The other danger is that with fifty different "other ways" to deal with
>bad behaviour, it's often difficult to pin the tail on the right donkey.
>And having one law which tries to summarise it all, between one set of
>covers, is usually regarded as helpful.
>
That can leave less tails than donkeys and in some cases unduly
increase penalties if minor transgressions are drawn into law mainly
intended to deal with more serious offences. Would you e.g.
consolidate events of public nudity into sexual offences law ?