It looks like I've been scammed - advice needed

unholyangel

018125 wrote: »

You've managed to misunderstand threatening behaviour and blackmail law. I'm sorry that my behaviour conflicts with your moral code, and you are entitled to your opinion, but your comments in relation to my email are nonsense and I hope nobody takes them seriously.

Thank you for your input, it's always good to hear other opinions.

Thorne v Motor Trade Association Lord Wright said:

I think the word 'menace' is to be liberally construed and not as limited to threats of violence but as including threats of any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the person addressed. It may also include a warning that in certain events such action is intended

Or in R v Clear LJ sellers said:

Words or conduct which would not intimidate or influence anyone to respond to the demand would not be menaces ... but threats and conduct of such a nature and such an extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwilling to the demand would be sufficient for a jury's consideration.

Or failing that, heres an actual solicitors take on it:
http://www.qamarsolicitors.co.uk/services/general-crime/blackmail-extortion/

The fact there may be a debt owed does not give you a defence to a charge of blackmail.

018125

unholyangel wrote: »

Thorne v Motor Trade Association Lord Wright said:


Or in R v Clear LJ sellers said:


Or failing that, heres an actual solicitors take on it:
http://www.qamarsolicitors.co.uk/services/general-crime/blackmail-extortion/

The fact there may be a debt owed does not give you a defence to a charge of blackmail.

"Be like Bill, don't argue on the Internet"

Nothing you posted justifies anything you said. My email was not a threat and would never be accepted as a threat in a court of law.

My threatening (not a crime) to tell his daughter about his business practises is no different to my right to exercise my free speech and "threaten" to post a bad review if I were not refunded. By your definition the threatening to post a bad review would also be blackmail - and it is - but it would not be criminal.

Thanks again for the information, I enjoyed reading it.

Now this thread has been side tracked by really bad armchair lawyers and people who like to get offended on behalf of other people, I guess it has lost its value.

hollydays

I think you know very well that the implied threat is not, I know where your daughter lives and I might tell her about your business practices, but I know where your daughter lives and some harm might come to her.

That's what people usually mean when they say" I know where you live".
It's intimidation.

Valli

018125 wrote: »

"Be like Bill, don't argue on the Internet"

Nothing you posted justifies anything you said. My email was not a threat and would never be accepted as a threat in a court of law.

My threatening (not a crime) to tell his daughter about his business practises is no different to my right to exercise my free speech and "threaten" to post a bad review if I were not refunded. By your definition the threatening to post a bad review would also be blackmail - and it is - but it would not be criminal.

Thanks again for the information, I enjoyed reading it.

Now this thread has been side tracked by really bad armchair lawyers and people who like to get offended on behalf of other people, I guess it has lost its value.

Given that you asked strangers on an Internet forum for advice on obtaining a refund from a company you haven't named there is no value in this thread. No one else will be helped by it.

018125

hollydays wrote: »

I think you know very well that the implied threat is not, I know where your daughter lives and I might tell her about your business practices, but I know where your daughter lives and some harm might come to her.

That's what people usually mean when they say" I know where you live".
It's intimidation.

That was your incorrect and bizarre interpretation of my email, and was absolutely not my intention and nor would the law see it as such.

Just in case there's any further confusion, when I studied law, admittedly a long time ago, blackmail was defined in the Theft Act, and Google tells me that Section 21 (1) defines blackmail as including an unwarranted demand. If the blackmailer BELIEVES that the demand is warranted, e.g. they believe that they deserve a refund, it can not be considered blackmail.

A threat by itself can of course be illegal, but my email would certainly not be considered as such.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

neilmcl

Is it me or is this thread starting to feel like a wind up. Don't feed the troll guys!

cookie365

Theft Act 1968:

21 Blackmail.

(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21

wealdroam

018125 wrote: »

...be very cautious about believing people with thousands of posts, they tend to be more crazy than educated.

A sweeping generalisation if ever there was one. :rotfl:

unholyangel

wealdroam wrote: »

A sweeping generalisation if ever there was one. :rotfl:

He's just mad it was pointed out he was in the wrong for doing what he did. Lets face it, not the first time we've saw posters here spit the dummy and become abusive just because they didn't get the reaction they expected - and certainly won't be the last.

018125

unholyangel wrote: »

He's just mad it was pointed out he was in the wrong for doing what he did. Lets face it, not the first time we've saw posters here spit the dummy and become abusive just because they didn't get the reaction they expected - and certainly won't be the last.

It's normal for human beings to get annoyed when someone accuses them of something they didn't do.

The fact is my actions do not qualify for blackmail as per the legal definition. You said I was "lucky not to be up for blackmail charges". You could have just apologised.