|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Aug 10, 2016 8:35:56 GMT
For those of you contemplating all manners of fraud to get SS to take on their loan parts s.1 (3) (b) of the Fraud Act 2006 provides on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both). For those of you colluding with others (as may be the case here) Conspiracy to defraud is a common law offence with, in theory, no limit on the level or time of the sentence. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contentsI think the key words here are "on conviction on indictment". In reality, it is extremely unlikely that the police, let alone the CPS would pursue this, particularly as there would be no intention for SS to incur a loss; less likely that SS would incur a loss and even less likely that SS would make a complaint to the police in the first place. SS are presumably aware of the potential abuse and have the option to "plug" it. I should make it clear that this is my view; not my intention. The moderators seem keen on preventing anyone committing defamation however IMO committing a criminal offence, whether prosecuted or not, seems to expose them and the forum to a much greater risk (implied conspiracy), For you information the particular offence is covered in s.2 (1) (b) (ii) (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. So feel free to continue discussing it if you like in the hope that you will not be prosecuted but don't be lulled into a false sense of security as IMO notwithstanding what you say your intention is to expose SS to a "risk of loss" othyerwise you would not be doing it in the first place.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Aug 10, 2016 10:33:26 GMT
ISTM that it should not be illegal to alert anyone to a vulnerability for fear of being accused of incitement to others to commit an offence. I get lots of warnings from banks etc, received in the public domain, not personally, about the dangers of phishing and other scams. Are the banks acting illegally under the provisions you refer to?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Aug 10, 2016 10:42:17 GMT
ISTM that it should not be illegal to alert anyone to a vulnerability for fear of being accused of incitement to others to commit an offence. I get lots of warnings from banks etc, received in the public domain, not personally, about the dangers of phishing and other scams. Are the banks acting illegally under the provisions you refer to? No, but these poster are not advising savingstream of a vulnerability in their system, they are exploring ways of, fraudulently, transferring their risk to them.
|
|
goopy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 307 
Likes: 144
|
Post by goopy on Aug 10, 2016 11:57:18 GMT
ISTM that it should not be illegal to alert anyone to a vulnerability for fear of being accused of incitement to others to commit an offence. I get lots of warnings from banks etc, received in the public domain, not personally, about the dangers of phishing and other scams. Are the banks acting illegally under the provisions you refer to? No, but these poster are not advising savingstream of a vulnerability in their system, they are exploring ways of, fraudulently, transferring their risk to them. I think people were discussing ways in which someone 'could' fraudulently transfer risk to SS, which IMO is the same as alerting SS to the vulnerabilities as SS reads this forum. No one was suggesting that it was something which they 'should' do.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Aug 10, 2016 12:04:33 GMT
That might be an explanation, but as no-one tagged savingstream hardly a plausible one. Feel free to continue discussing it, you are presumably all over the age of 10 (the age of criminal responsibility in the uk) and therefore liable for any action you take. |
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Aug 10, 2016 12:25:18 GMT
As I say you can continue talking about it if you wish, ignorance of the law is no defence anyway but in this case it has been specifically poined out.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 10, 2016 12:29:08 GMT
ISTM that it should not be illegal to alert anyone to a vulnerability for fear of being accused of incitement to others to commit an offence. I get lots of warnings from banks etc, received in the public domain, not personally, about the dangers of phishing and other scams. Are the banks acting illegally under the provisions you refer to? It's eminently possible to alert people to risks - and to discuss those risks - in a way that doesn't disclose identities, directly or indirectly. There's 25 pages of a 29-page loan-specific thread been posted over the last week or so, doing exactly that. Then there's been similar on various other loans, not least where the crowd DD persuaded SS not to throw money into a toxic waste dump in the middle of a housing estate.
|
|
boble
Posts: 150
Likes: 65
|
Post by boble on Aug 10, 2016 13:11:58 GMT
I think the key words here are "on conviction on indictment". In reality, it is extremely unlikely that the police, let alone the CPS would pursue this, particularly as there would be no intention for SS to incur a loss; less likely that SS would incur a loss and even less likely that SS would make a complaint to the police in the first place. SS are presumably aware of the potential abuse and have the option to "plug" it. I should make it clear that this is my view; not my intention. The moderators seem keen on preventing anyone committing defamation however IMO committing a criminal offence, whether prosecuted or not, seems to expose them and the forum to a much greater risk (implied conspiracy), For you information the particular offence is covered in s.2 (1) (b) (ii) (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. So feel free to continue discussing it if you like in the hope that you will not be prosecuted but don't be lulled into a false sense of security as IMO notwithstanding what you say your intention is to expose SS to a "risk of loss" othyerwise you would not be doing it in the first place. Very slanted, defamatory and libellous remarks dualinvestor! Have you not heard of playing Devils Advocate? Have you ever been the victim of a major conspiracy to defraud? I have? Between a high street bank and a leading law firm. The CPS chose not to prosecute despite unequivocal written evidence between the parties clearly setting out the intent and the fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Aug 10, 2016 13:23:19 GMT
If you feel it is defamatory (which btw woulld be libellous (one of the two types of defamation) de facto so your distiction between the two is tortologous) there is action you can take under The Defamation Act to obtain my identity and bring procedings against me. You will require a court order to do so as I do not give my consent for any personal information to be passed to you. You might also find it difficult to establish that boble or any of the other "board identities" can be defamed in the first instance. I have heard of playing the devil's advocate but not sure how you claim to have that role. Also because you feel particularly aggrevied that no action was taken in the other case you should be aware that it does not create a precedent. |
|
boble
Posts: 150
Likes: 65
|
Post by boble on Aug 10, 2016 13:31:11 GMT
If you feel it is defamatory (which btw woulld be libellous (one of the two types of defamation) de facto so your distiction between the two is tortologous) there is action you can take under The Defamation Act to obtain my identity and bring procedings against me. You will require a court order to do so as I do not give my consent for any personal information to be passed to you. You will also find it difficult to establish that boble or any of the other "board identities" can be defamed in the first instance. I have heard of playing the devil's advocate but not sure how you claim to have that role. Also because you feel particularly aggrevied that no action was taken in the other case you should be aware that it does not create a precedent. In my view you should be removed from this forum. I for one have absolutely no interested in your twisted and bitter views! I will not be making any further comment in this matter as I have a life (and a spell checker)!
|
|
