Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jason Simmons, post: 3174027, member: 8275"] People have an interesting view of police. They seem to think based on US television that it is up to them, whether police charge someone or not. It isn’t. People may make a complaint, but police decide whether to charge or not, the individuals involved and with what. Seibold may well want the police to charge someone, but that doesn’t mean they will. Now the only likely offences NSW Police can be investigating, if indeed they are investigating anything, unless there is far more to the story than we have been told about, is either Criminal Defamation (if NSW has such an offence), or a Commonwealth offence of Using a Carriage Service, to threaten, Menace or Harass. The difference between doing it yourself and complaining to the police, is who gathers the evidence, and what ability they have to gather said evidence, and who then presents it to court and how. Police have far more extensive powers available to them to gather evidence, than private investigators or lawyers ever will. They have specialist units, such as forensic computer experts, surveillance operatives and the ability to intercept data, calls and sms / mms during investigations... When they decide to prosecute, police have trained litigators and / of the office of the DPP to present their case. All of that is why the courts lean so heavily in favour of the defendant’s rights so often, because the weight of ‘power’ in this scenario is clearly with the State. Now civilly with a legal team, private forensic computer examiners and so on, you can mimic these investigative resources to some degree, but you have to do and fund it all yourself. You have to go to court and present your case, you have to endure all the issues police taken on when they go to court acting on your behalf, with the defendant’s rights and so forth, you don’t have the Crown, arguing on your behalf, it’s all on you and whatever you can convince the court to go along with. The point about ‘laughing at it’ is in terms of the seriousness of the matter and whether it even constitutes an offence. There is no offence for ‘cyber bullying’ because it is an entirely subject term. What is bullying to you, could be considered banter by others and you can’t legislate on that. What they have legislated on, Federally at least anyway, is repeated such behaviour directed at one specific person, hence the ‘Using a Carriage Service’ offence I mentioned before. What the NSW police have to decide is whether gossiping about an NRL coach’s private life on social media, constitutes the term ‘harassing’. Hence why I said they’d laugh it. Not the act, but the fact Seibold even bothered making a complaint about this, because again on the public facts known, I can’t see it going anywhere as a “criminal” matter... [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 15 (members: 0, guests: 15)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now