It looks like I've been scammed - advice needed

unholyangel

018125 wrote: »

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.

I've provided proof to back up my viewpoints. The only thing you've provided to back up your viewpoint is your own opinion.

Enough said I think.

cookie365

018125 wrote: »

The fact is my actions do not qualify for blackmail as per the legal definition.

We're getting all hypothetical here, but ti would be a matter of persuading a jury that you held a genuine belief 'that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand'.

Could make for an interesting interview under PACE.

Copper: so you routinely research the family members of people you're in dispute with?

018125: no comment

If a complaint was made, I could easily see the CPS deciding to bring charges to let the court decide if that was a genuine belief.

DpchMd

unholyangel wrote: »

I've provided proof to back up my viewpoints. The only thing you've provided to back up your viewpoint is your own opinion.

Enough said I think.

As OP has already stated, for a Blackmail conviction the demand needs to be unwarranted. It would be easy for OP to prove that he believed his demand to be warranted, and thus blackmail would not apply.

I also can't imagine a scenario where that email would be accepted as threatening behaviour given the circumstances.

cookie365

DpchMd wrote: »

As OP has already stated, for a Blackmail conviction the demand needs to be unwarranted. It would be easy for OP to prove that he believed his demand to be warranted, and thus blackmail would not apply.

I also can't imagine a scenario where that email would be accepted as threatening behaviour given the circumstances.

You've misread the act. It would be easy for the OP to prove that he believed he had grounds for making the demand for the refund. It's the belief that the menaces were a proper way of reinforcing the demand that's the problem.

Landofwood

LOL at this trainwreck of a thread.

Yes the email was naughty but never in a million years blackmail, the definition is as clear as anything.

DpchMd

cookie365 wrote: »

You've misread the act. It would be easy for the OP to prove that he believed he had grounds for making the demand for the refund. It's the belief that the menaces were a proper way of reinforcing the demand that's the problem.

Both the 'demand' and 'menaces' clauses need to be satisfied for blackmail to apply.

unholyangel

DpchMd wrote: »

Both the 'demand' and 'menaces' clauses need to be satisfied for blackmail to apply.

Yes, but neither of them need to be explicit, they can be implied.

Also, the demand and menaces is completely separate to the unwarranted part so not entirely sure why you think its an answer to cookies point.

ETA: I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories. But two posters who don't seem to have any history posting in consumer rights but have histories posting in housing boards popping up on the same consumer rights thread within minutes of each other, now thats some coincidence

DpchMd

unholyangel wrote: »

Yes, but neither of them need to be explicit, they can be implied.

Also, the demand and menaces is completely separate to the unwarranted part so not entirely sure why you think its an answer to cookies point.

Now you are getting confused. I never said anything about them needing to be explicit.

Blackmail comprises (fundamentally) of 2 clauses:

1. The demand must be unwarranted

AND

2. There are menaces

We can all agree that OP believes that the demand was warranted, and it's the belief that counts. This alone means that blackmail does not apply. This is not debateable, it has been this way for 40 years.

In my opinion, the email would not even satisfy clause number 2, although I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about that.

unholyangel

DpchMd wrote: »

Now you are getting confused. I never said anything about them needing to be explicit.

Blackmail comprises (fundamentally) of 2 clauses:

1. The demand must be unwarranted

AND

2. There are menaces

We can all agree that OP believes that the demand was warranted, and it's the belief that counts. This alone means that blackmail does not apply. This is not debateable, it has been this way for 40 years.

In my opinion, the email would not even satisfy clause number 2, although I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about that.

There needs to be a demand, with menaces that is unwarranted and with a view to making a gain for himself or someone else or have intent to cause a loss to someone else.

The demands being unwarranted is broken down into 2 parts as cookie said above. That they both have reasonable grounds for making the demand and that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

While OP might have no problem convincing people of the first part - there seems to be quite a few people who think his use of menaces was not a proper means of reinforcing that demand.

Satisfying one part of the 2 part test wouldn't be enough.

DpchMd

unholyangel wrote: »

There needs to be a demand, with menaces that is unwarranted and with a view to making a gain for himself or someone else or have intent to cause a loss to someone else.

The demands being unwarranted is broken down into 2 parts as cookie said above. That they both have reasonable grounds for making the demand and that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

While OP might have no problem convincing people of the first part - there seems to be quite a few people who think his use of menaces was not a proper means of reinforcing that demand.

Satisfying one part of the 2 part test wouldn't be enough.

That is false. Sorry.