On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:37:45 +0000, Dustin wrote:

> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in news:ithqfh$3eo$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Peter Foldes replied incognito ........
>>
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK - *you* explain, dear Peter, why Siljaline has been removed from
>>>> the list of VSOP's at Aumha - a place where you've resided since its
>>>> inception. Has he upset the hierarchy there?
>>>
>>> a. Maybe he found other work.
>>> b. Maybe he doesn't have the extra time anymore. c. Maybe he wasn't
>>> "removed" but quit for those reasons. d. Maybe he wants to spend more
>>> time with family. e. Maybe he bought a boat.
>>
>> Nah!
>>
>> He's pretty active here!
>>
>> http://www.wilderssecurity.com/searc...archid=4150390
>>
>> The truth *will* out! ;-)
>>
>>
> Do your local authorities know you're stalking people online David?

"In the United Kingdom, the Malicious Communications Act (1998)
classified cyberstalking as a criminal offense".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking>

Looks to me like BD could at least be charged under the Protection from
Harassment Act (1997). Quite a few people on usenet and other places
would be well within their rights to report him under the act.

Quite a few of his posts could be deemed 'offensive' under the MCA
(1998), and therefore actionable by the authorities. Even under the PFA
(1997), BD, if convicted, could have a restraining order placed upon him
to prevent him contacting his targets again, under pain of a nice long
stay in HMP.

"Under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998 it is an
offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic
communication or other article to another person and sections 85 Postal
Services Act 2000 or s127 Communications Act 2003 there are similar
specific offences relating to sending postal or telephone messages which
are indecent offensive or threatening. Both offences are punishable with
up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine. Because the Malicious
Communications Offence is more wide ranging than the Telecommunications
offence it is more likely to be charged by the Police than the Postal
Services or Communications Act offences.

In most cases involving malicious communications however there will be
more than one offensive or threatening letter or telephone call and
therefore the police will often choose to charge the offender with an
offence contrary to section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Part of the reason for using this charge is that when someone is
convicted of an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act the
court can make a Restraining Order preventing them from contacting their
victim again. Breach of a Restraining Order is punishable with up to Five
years imprisonment. A Restraining Order cannot be imposed for a
conviction under the Postal Services or Communications Act offences".

<http://www.neiladdison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/comm.htm>

FYI
HTH



--
"Those who do not make human beings the center of their concern soon
lose the capacity to make any ethical choices, for they willingly
sacrifice others in the name of the politically expedient and
practical." - Dwight Macdonald, “The Root Is Man.”