It looks like I've been scammed - advice needed

hollydays

DpchMd wrote: »

That is false. Sorry.

You've not provided any learned discussion, as is usual on here, just pub psychology or google .
The number of people on here who claim to be law experts ( but only on the theft act) via Google

The op has been advised not to make veiled threats in the real world.
It's not the legal aspect that's the problem, it's his lack of common sense in what can happen if you send implied threats via email to strangers.

cookie365

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.

No. Read the act again. Slowly this time!

The starting point is that the menaces (in this case implied) are unwarranted, unless both strands 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) are satsified.

21(1)(a) - easy
21(1)(b) - not so easy

You can't just make up a different definition of blackmail and claim it's fundamentally the same. The act itself is easy to follow.

018125

I could have said "give me a refund or I'll kidnap your wife at 8pm at your house in 11 Brookside Close" and it STILL would not have been blackmail.

Might have broken a few other laws though...

Thanks for the interesting discussion all!

cookie365

018125 wrote: »

I could have said "give me a refund or I'll kidnap your wife at 8pm at your house in 11 Brookside Close" and it STILL would not have been blackmail.

Might have broken a few other laws though...

Thanks for the interesting discussion all!

Except, of course, that it most clearly is.

hollydays

018125 wrote: »

I could have said "give me a refund or I'll kidnap your wife at 8pm at your house in 11 Brookside Close" and it STILL would not have been blackmail.

Might have broken a few other laws though...

Thanks for the interesting discussion all!

Yes, but some people are prats so that's to be expected?

I look forward to you naming as shaming the company as promised post # 1
I love the " ah guys this is a debate" argument, when you've lost the argument..nada..

I predict loads of posters are going to,join the thread to debate""the law""

018125

hollydays wrote: »

Yes, but some people are prats so that's to be expected?

I look forward to you naming as shaming the company as promised post # 1
I love the " ah guys this is a debate" argument, when you've lost the argument..nada..

I predict loads of posters are going to,join the thread to debate""the law""

No idea what you just said

robatwork

OP you are providing an object lesson in passive aggressive behaviour.

Both your email that is the subject of this debate, and a lot of your replies to this thread.

018125

robatwork wrote: »

OP you are providing an object lesson in passive aggressive behaviour.

Both your email that is the subject of this debate, and a lot of your replies to this thread.

Now we have both law and psychology experts in this thread!

I'm sorry to everyone I may have offended and I do genuinely appreciate the comments. I will admit to finding some of the comments amusing, but the beauty of an open internet forum is everyone is allowed an opinion regardless of their education or qualifications, and I certainly wouldn't change that.

I tried to be as passive aggressive as possible for you.

hollydays

018125 wrote: »

Now we have both law and psychology experts in this thread!

I'm sorry to everyone I may have offended and I do genuinely appreciate the comments. I will admit to finding some of the comments amusing, but the beauty of an open internet forum is everyone is allowed an opinion regardless of their education or qualifications, and I certainly wouldn't change that.

I tried to be as passive aggressive as possible for you.

It's true that there's no need for you to be embarrassed about any lack of education.

Some people aren't used to having money to spend and tend to rush in where angels fear to tread.

Perhaps next time you make a purchase you will try to remember to check the company out before you buy?

MikeWhite

018125 wrote: »

Now we have both law and psychology experts in this thread!

I'm sorry to everyone I may have offended and I do genuinely appreciate the comments. I will admit to finding some of the comments amusing, but the beauty of an open internet forum is everyone is allowed an opinion regardless of their education or qualifications, and I certainly wouldn't change that.

I tried to be as passive aggressive as possible for you.

There are certainly many, many "experts" on here. You are free (and, IMO, should) ignore most of them (including me, if you so choose).