1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. uk.legal.moderated

  • Re: Projecting images onto buildings - what law has been broken?

    From Roger Hayter@roger@hayter.org to uk.legal.moderated on Thu Sep 25 18:58:08 2025
    From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

    On 25 Sep 2025 at 18:20:06 BST, "Norman Wells" <norman@myard.uk> wrote:

    JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> Wrote in message:r
    On 23/09/2025 02:43 PM, Norman Wells wrote:>

    The law requires a malicious communication to be sent. It wasn't.

    The perps were comunicating with someone (or at least, they hoped they were, >> otherwise their efforts were in vain). And their attempt at communication
    (which was sent) was malicious.

    It is only a malicious communication if all the requirements of
    Section 1(1) of the 1988 Act are met, which are not as you have
    just assumed or decided off the top of your head. If you actually
    read it, you'll find that they are not met in several different
    respects.


    ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

    Indeed. It is possible to correct someone's grammar and spelling with extreme malice. But, on its own, that is unlikely to meet the legal criteria for a malicious communication.
    --

    Roger Hayter

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2