Easdale threating to sue again!!!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Well, you would clearly be the sender. Whether you knew you were sending or not is not the issue - after all ignorance is no defence in law - the fact is that you still sent the e-mail by signing the petition..

 

That's nonsense.

 

BD signed the petition, the organisers of the petition sent or caused the email to be sent to Mr Easdale; even if BD new the email was to be sent, which he didn't, he still didn't send it.

 

That's like saying I send you an email which you FWD to someone else; so I sent it to the someone else; I don't think so.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

This is great news!

 

No doubt on the back of this, the continual recorded messages I have received for several years now about claiming PPI compensation will cease, since they will be considered as harrassment.

 

No doubt the glaikit wee scrotes who stand at my door, thump my wall with the flat of their hand and go 'aye, ye need cavitty insewlachin, big man' will piss off since they, too, can be considered harrassment.

 

No doubt the bales of guff which comes through my door exhorting me to take out a credit card will cease too, as they most certainly constitute harrassment on both environmental and political grounds.

 

Really, 'I don't like this' is about the feeblest excuse for legal action ever. There's plenty of things I don't like but I can't always go crying to the lawyer's office.

 

Grow up or piss off, Easdale.

 

You DO need cavity wall insulation.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I don't think anyone is coming out of this looking very smart.

 

The recipients of the petition emails should either have done as you say and delete + block those emails or else set up a new folder in their inbox and create a new message rule which would instantly move all of those emails as well as any future ones from that sender to the new folder. If they'd done that there would have been absolutely no need to get irate about it or overreact by taking legal action.

 

From another point of view though, whoever set up the petition hasn't acted in a way best described as 'smart' either because they could have set up the petition without the options checked for sending out emails upon every registered signature. In the days before online petitions people had to go round their family, friends, neighbours and stand down their local high streets, shopping centres etc with a clipboard to get signatures on their petition.

 

What they certainly didn't do was run to the post office with a letter every time they got a new signature. Instead, they waited until they reached their target number of signatures on the petition, then sent it off saying "you need to listen to us because we have 10,000 signatures".

 

You and I don't often agree 100% Zappa but you'll no doubt be comforted to know that I agree with you 100% here.

[Bluedell 5,341]

Your analogy is the wrong way round and you are juxtaposing perpetrator and victim. What would be the crime you had committed and what would you be charged with if you switched on the light detonating the bomb that somebody had planted?

 

if *you* do something illegal, ignorance of the law is no defense. Thus if you caused an email to be sent to SE by your actions and/or by your failure to read the small print on the website, that's no defense and you are guilty because you are the sender.

 

According to your principle, the perpetrator is the one who flicked the switch. He's the one that caused the explosion by his actions. It's really not that difficult a concept.

[Blue Moon 1,113]

Your analogy is the wrong way round and you are juxtaposing perpetrator and victim. What would be the crime you had committed and what would you be charged with if you switched on the light detonating the bomb that somebody had planted?

 

if *you* do something illegal, ignorance of the law is no defense. Thus if you caused an email to be sent to SE by your actions and/or by your failure to read the small print on the website, that's no defense and you are guilty because you are the sender.

 

Surely there has to be intent.

[Zappa 0]

But you could not reasonably argue that SoS were the senders any more than you can argue that the Post Office is the sender of every bit of junk mail you receive.

 

That doesn't make any sense PapaBear.

[Rangersitis 0]

That doesn't make any sense PapaBear.

 

Just wait until you get to the lightswitch bomb!

[The Real PapaBear 0]

That doesn't make any sense PapaBear.

 

au contraire, it makes perfect sense.The Post Office (or Royal Mail for the pedants) have set up a system whereby if you complete a sending action, i.e put a letter in a big red box, they will deliver said letter to intended recipient.

SoS have set up a system whereby if you complete a sending action, i.e. press a button, they will deliver said email to intended recipient

 

Both cases require the sender to send something. Whether the sender knew he was sending is immaterial; the fact remains he is the sender, thereby answering the initial question as to who should be regarded as the sender SoS or the signatory to the petition.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Surely there has to be intent.

 

sorry, don't follow; "intent" for what?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

According to your principle, the perpetrator is the one who flicked the switch. He's the one that caused the explosion by his actions. It's really not that difficult a concept.

 

You're right, it's not a difficult concept, but your analogy is so arse-end-furrits that it's making the simple very complicated.

 

You signed a petition on a web site.

The web site explained that the petition would be sent to the recipient.

You pressed 'send' and the 'email' was sent.

Your failure to make yourself aware of what it was that you were doing, understandable as that may be, is nobody else's responsibility.

You clicked 'send'. You are the sender.