Alarm Harassment Or Distress

[nailit]

Is there a UK law that identifies what EXACTLY constitutes alarm, harassment or distress?
Thanks?
Or is it a bit wishy washy?
TIA.

[douglas9401]

It's fast becoming clear why normally calm, sane people eventually go postal in a given situation.

Sometimes all you want is for the noise to stop.

[woofgang]

that's why the law is necessarily imprecise....someone losing control of a drone and accidentally flying it into your conservatory....annoying as hell if its my conservatory....annoying enough for me to take a handy blunt instrument to it but not alarming or distressing. If I was a partially sighted elderly lady then both alarming and distressing.

BUT someone deliberately flying their drone into my house with a camera on it, well that's intended to harass, alarm or cause distress or all 3.

[woofgang]

nailit, is there a reason for your question?

[THECORBYLOON]

Say someone said or did something in my presence which was offensive but did not alarm or distress me.

An eighty-year old woman standing ten foot from me might have been shaking and bubbling because she was alarmed and distressed.

Both of us would have heard and seen the same things but had different reactions.

That is why it cannot be cut and dry.

[nailit]

//nailit, is there a reason for your question?//
Ostensibly because of some you-tube vids that Ive been viewing.
But also because I have found myself in front of magistrates, before now, charged with 'offences' that others appear to be immune from.

[woofgang]

and if the whole of answerbank were to rise up and agree with you then what would you do? What would that change?

[nailit]

//and if the whole of answerbank were to rise up and agree with you then what would you do? What would that change?//

Nothing at all woof. Why should it??

[New Judge]

"But nothing in there clearly states what constitutes threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour."

No it doesn't, nailit. That's what courts are for. If a defendant says he did not commit threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour and the alleged victim believes that he did, then a court must decide who is right.

There are many "vague" laws. One that may be easier to understand is careless driving. The law says that a driver is guilty of careless driving "...if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver." It is for a court to decide (assuming the defendant pleads Not Guilty) whether his driving fell below the expected standard.

In fact the difference between that and dangerous driving (a far more serious offence which attracts a prison sentence of up to two years) is simply one word - "far": "...a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if and ....only if the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver" There is a little bit of qualification which I have left out but the essential elements of the offence are as I described. It is for a court r=to decide if either of the offences have been committed and they do so based on the evidence they hear.

[woofgang]

I just wonder why you seem to be chewing on an old bone.

[Peter Pedant]

// //and if the whole of answerbank were to rise up and agree with you then what would you do? What would that change?//

Nothing at all woof. Why should it??

o god are we really back to
i was just wondering and to be honest this is just a waste of your time ?

[Peter Pedant]

yes - - - no - - - I wanna be told if it is a question of :

1) o god please help coz I am gonna go down in a week !
or
2) I was jus wondering coz me auld mam used to say over n over (yeah a lot den) 20 y ago - - harassment wot dat den? - - and during the last 20 y I have often wondered what the answer is - - - what is the answer den? - wot did me auld mam mean gawd blesser

[Peter Pedant]

oo yeah bless her still
I mean -does it mean anyfing ?
life - - the universe - - - and evryfing !

[Peter Pedant]

all dis finking - - oo me brayne hurts somefing awful

[woofgang]

PP....... 42