Darthter 542 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 In what way is it unlawful? sending 1000's of unsolicited emails.....SPAM 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 sending 1000's of unsolicited emails.....SPAM Whatever it is, It's not spam as there is no marketing or commercial aspect to it, therefore it's not unlawful in that respect. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/contents/made 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 why the hell is he costantly looking to sue or take legal action against fans of the club ?? That's just ridiculous and tells you everything you need to know about him. What a mess. Get them out of our club once and for all !!! Enough is enough ! Maybe we put things into perspective a little - without actually defending Easdale here. Houston had a spat with him at Ibrox* and allowed "unnecessary stuff" to be published on FB about Easdale, IRRC. Hence, the latter took action. Now Houston (and Co.) set up an apparently unlawful spam attack on Easdale. That is action number two. Nothing "constant". Neither the SoS or Houston are sacro-sanct because their are Bears. One can and should give them credit for what they are doing and aiming for, but not loose perspective - no matter who they are opposing. By all means, fight the board if you have to, but do it right. *Yes, that was about apparently illegal information accessed by Easdale. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Whatever it is, It's not spam as there is no marketing or commercial aspect to it, therefore it's not unlawful in that respect.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/contents/made Harassing an e-mail account with mails whose senders apparently did not knew they were used? Maybe you have to look at the finer details of law-speech, but I reckon Easdale's lawyer is well versed in somesuch. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Maybe we put things into perspective a little - without actually defending Easdale here. Houston had a spat with him at Ibrox* and allowed "unnecessary stuff" to be published on FB about Easdale, IRRC. Hence, the latter took action. Now Houston (and Co.) set up an apparently unlawful spam attack on Easdale. That is action number two. Nothing "constant". Neither the SoS or Houston are sacro-sanct because their are Bears. One can and should give them credit for what they are doing and aiming for, but not loose perspective - no matter who they are opposing. By all means, fight the board if you have to, but do it right. *Yes, that was about apparently illegal information accessed by Easdale. You call for perspective DB....................... Ongoing ownership of Ibrox Stadium and other main assets or "Houston (and Co.)" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Harassing an e-mail account with mails whose senders apparently did not knew they were used? Maybe you have to look at the finer details of law-speech, but I reckon Easdale's lawyer is well versed in somesuch. who is saying that senders did not know that e-mails would be sent to Easedale and Wallace ??? ! Taken from Craig's orignial notice: "This online petition will automatically send an email to G Wallace and S Easdale every time it is signed" So, people were aware. Anyway, what's this - are we saying that no company or people representing a company can be sent an e-mail which gives dissatisfaction on the way the company is being run ?? I'm not sure the bosses at M&S, for example, are suing all their customers who complain to them. Ore are we in North Korea now ?? Deary me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 The fact that this was happening was kept from the people signing the petition and I may think twice about signing some SoS petition in the future due to the unintended consequences. Putting the rights and wrongs to one side, it is clearly stated on their Facebook page that an email will be sent to Wallace and Easedale with every sign up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Putting the rights and wrongs to one side, it is clearly stated on their Facebook page that an email will be sent to Wallace and Easedale with every sign up. Given that the petition didn't reference their FB page in any shape or form, that's not particularly helpful or relevant. I don't think I've ever visited their FB page. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 who is saying that senders did not know that e-mails would be sent to Easedale and Wallace ??? ! Taken from Craig's orignial notice: "This online petition will automatically send an email to G Wallace and S Easdale every time it is signed" So, people were aware.. I for one didn't know, so your statement is incorrect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Whatever it is, It's not spam as there is no marketing or commercial aspect to it, therefore it's not unlawful in that respect.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/contents/made That's interesting. So it's not illegal to bombard someone with emails as long as there's no commercial aspect to it. Seems like a real loophole in the law if it's not covered by legislation elsewhere. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.