It's ok. It was in the delivery.
Why members have been banned thread Page 8
Has Ben been banned - and then resurrected as Ben something else because he got to 13,500 posts?
Why has longingfortheoldclassics been banned? Did he/she offend someone?
Sadly, he turned psychotic when he was asked to change his large, animated signature. He's now trying to scare me with threats by e-mail.
Quote: Aaron @ August 27 2013, 6:06 PM BSTSadly, he turned psychotic when he was asked to change his large, animated signature. He's now trying to scare me with threats by e-mail.
Oops! You'd expect a fan of OFAH and other 70s classics being a bit more relaxed and mellow.
Not to mention mature. Sad when you realise the maladjusted people in the world, eh?
Quote: Aaron @ August 27 2013, 6:06 PM BSTSadly, he turned psychotic when he was asked to change his large, animated signature. He's now trying to scare me with threats by e-mail.
Oooh, do give him my card. Malicious Communications Act offences are some of my absolute favourite. Although they generally take place in the context of the breakdown of a romantic relationship.
Quote: Tim Azure @ August 27 2013, 6:23 PM BSTWhy would Aaron (the victim) give Longingfortheoldclassics (the alleged attacker) your card?
To stop him doing it?
Quote: Nogget @ August 27 2013, 6:30 PM BSTTo stop him doing it?
Exactly. I am very persuasive. Before the Twitter thing kicked off, people didn't realise that being unpleasant on the internet was a criminal offence. I am an educator.
And should Aaron decide to press charges, the other chap is going to need legal representation.
Business is business.
I rather suspect he's reading this, so do feel free to explain publicly that it's a crime, Jennie. Might benefit people in future too!
Quote: Jennie @ August 27 2013, 6:18 PM BSTMalicious Communications Act offences are some of my absolute favourite.
That's just a fancy way of saying "talk dirty honey"
hang on are you going to sue me now?
Quote: Aaron @ August 27 2013, 7:03 PM BSTI rather suspect he's reading this, so do feel free to explain publicly that it's a crime, Jennie. Might benefit people in future too!
I must say I am always impressed by your sanguine degrees of tolerance Aaron.
We could use you in Syria at the mo.
Quote: sootyj @ August 27 2013, 7:05 PM BSTWe could use you in Syria at the mo.
Are you in Syria? I think I've spotted you in the crowd
Really I thought I was in Newport, I thought the ladies were all a bit over dressed,
Quote: sootyj @ August 27 2013, 7:05 PM BSTThat's just a fancy way of saying "talk dirty honey"
If anyone wants to talk dirty to me I promise I won't sue. However your voice may be recorded for training purposes.
Quote: Aaron @ August 27 2013, 7:03 PM BSTI rather suspect he's reading this, so do feel free to explain publicly that it's a crime, Jennie. Might benefit people in future too!
I get to talk law! 
You can't just talk shit over the internet. Section 1(1) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 states that " Any person who sends to another person
a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys
a message which is indecent or grossly offensive or a threat...is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a level 5 fine."
It is NOT necessary for the defendant to intend that the threat be carried out. It is sufficient in law that he intended to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" to the recipient. It is generally taken as read that a threat is sent with that intention.
These offences are getting prosecuted more and more, because they are so much easier to prove in the days of IP and email addresses. If it can be proved you sent it, and a complaint is made to the cops, you will likely get prosecuted - and receive either a caution or a full conviction.
Both will be on your criminal record and are tricky to explain away to employers.
So don't do it. And if you are going to do it, probably best not to do it to Aaron, who presumably can access our email and IP addresses.
Here endeth the lesson.