Rangersitis 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 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. Fair enough, I was merely pointing it out. 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 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. Except, as has been shown, the senders were informed that Easedale would be notified. Furthermore, when e-mails are sent to a director of a company whose 'customers' are unhappy with the running of that company, these e-mails can not be regarded as "harassment" by any right thinking person. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) 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. If we take this particular case and ask a couple of questions. Does the sender who has links to receiver as a customer/supporter/shareholder have a right to hold to account / communicate with the receiver, the PLC/club (via officebearers) and do the senders have reasonable grounds for concern that the message contained within communication is of current relevance. ?? Edited May 21, 2014 by buster. 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 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. Depending on the nature of the "bombardment" it may break other laws if these are sent to a private individual, e.g. if they are threatening or defamatory. In this case, it is the content rather than the frequency of the communication that is liable to fall foul of the legislation. However, the emails here concern the running of the business for which Easedale is largely responsible and were presumably sent to the business address. This is perfectly legal, right and proper. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I for one didn't know, so your statement is incorrect. You may not have known - but plenty others knew full well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,118 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I for one didn't know, so your statement is incorrect. Nor did I know this. I didn't access the petition through the FB page. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 If we take this particular case and ask a couple of questions. Does the sender who has links to receiver as a customer/supporter/shareholder have a right to hold to account / communicate with the receiver, the PLC/club and do the senders have reasonable grounds for concern that the message contained within communication is of current relevance. ?? It depends on who you classify the sender is. There's a strong argument that the sender is SoS and therefor them sending a couple of emails is reasonable, but if they send 1,000s that say the same thing word for word then it's not holding them to account and would fall into another area. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Does anyone think the people running Astra Zeneca and or Pfizer are going to sue people who have been e-mailing them about the recent proposed merger, stating their dissatsfaction ?? We need to get a sense of reality here. This is just Irvine 'trying it on' again 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 It depends on who you classify the sender is. There's a strong argument that the sender is SoS and therefor them sending a couple of emails is reasonable, but if they send 1,000s that say the same thing word for word then it's not holding them to account and would fall into another area. 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Depending on the nature of the "bombardment" it may break other laws if these are sent to a private individual, e.g. if they are threatening or defamatory. In this case, it is the content rather than the frequency of the communication that is liable to fall foul of the legislation. However, the emails here concern the running of the business for which Easedale is largely responsible and were presumably sent to the business address. This is perfectly legal, right and proper. I'd say the main issue would be the frequency and I've said in the previous email, the fact that one party is sending (or arranging to send) numerous emails then it's not right or proper in my opinion, not withstanding the legality of it. Perhaps it would fall foul of a harassment law? Certainly not my area of expertise. 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.