Use of Powerline units instead of proper wifi or cables.

[mattylad]

Because, as I said earlier.....

Probably because no one in power gives a toss and those that do, do not have any power.

Simples.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you have a neighbour whose Powerlines are giving you grief, get some network sniffing and password cracking tools and every now and then stick a report of his activity through his letter box.

 

[motorbiking]

Good luck with that - when it goes to court
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/crossheading/computer-misuse-offences
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/1

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It is often the case that taking action oneself when those charged with doing so on your behalf have abrogated their responsibilities and not given you the protection to which you are entitled involves risks.

 

[bernardgreen]

(3)Subsection (1) [F4or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

It has been considered that conduct to identify and shut down a source of interference is reasonable conduct.

 

[SimonH2]

Good luck persuading TPTB that taking the law into your own hands was "reasonable"

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Good luck TBTB showing that it is just, and morally sound, that people have to passively accept being victims simply because TPTB CBA to fulfil their responsibilities.

 

[SimonH2]

They don't have to show that, they only have to stop you showing that your actions were reasonable. In general there are quite restricted limits to taking the law into your own hands - and for good reason. Once you accept that allowing citizens to do their own "law enforcement" then you open up the gates to somewhere we really don't want to be.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In general there are quite restricted limits to taking the law into your own hands - and for good reason.

Often those reasons are that TBTB want to misbehave.

e.g., my sympathies are entirely with the "Stansted 15", and I would consider that they had acted reasonably, and with moral justification, if they had gone even further and damaged the plane to prevent it leaving.

Once you accept that allowing citizens to do their own "law enforcement" then you open up the gates to somewhere we really don't want to be.

I agree we don't to be there.

But we want to be there less than we want to be where lawbreakers get away with their activities because those tasked with stopping them fail to try to do their job properly.

 

[SimonH2]

Often those reasons are that TBTB want to misbehave.

e.g., my sympathies are entirely with the "Stansted 15", and I would consider that they had acted reasonably, and with moral justification, if they had gone even further and damaged the plane to prevent it leaving.

Lets take a look at that in detail shall we ?

First assumption is that TPTB were misbehaving. I believe they were acting within the law as laid down - I think the law, and the way it's being applied, in that area stinks. But in legal terms, TPTB in that case were carrying out their assigned duties and enforcing the law as it's laid down. I'm thinking it's getting time to go and see my MP in person, and ask why my letters on the subject have not been answered. But that is a completely different discussion.

Now, as to the 15. Yes, I agree that their actions had moral justification. Was it reasonable, well that's an area wide open to debate - but as far as they went, maybe.

Then your last bit. You are stating that you consider it acceptable to cause criminal damage to the property of someone (or some business) acting fully within the law and in support of lawful actions by officials tasks with enforcing the law. Lets be clear, you wrote "I would consider that they had acted reasonably, and with moral justification, if they had gone even further and damaged the plane". There is no room for misunderstanding there, you are stating that you would consider them justified in causing criminal damage.

Further, your justification for that is that the law and the actions of those enforcing it are morally unacceptable.
Who decides which "moral rules" apply ? If it's morally acceptable to cause criminal damage because you disagree with the law, where does that stop ? Surely, by your logic it would be quite acceptable for ... lets rummage around for an example ... people of some religious beliefs to damage property (eg throw paint on the house, vandalise the car) of of a gay or lesbian couple ? Similarly, by your own argument, it would be acceptable for members of certain groups to damage the salons of anyone who cuts or shaves beards. I could go on - there are many activities that are morally unacceptable to some group or other, and some of those groups have gone down the "militant" route with nasty consequences.


With your post, you have demonstrated why we must have strict limits on what people can do in taking the law into their own hands. Without those restrictions, it's a free for all to cause damage (or worse) if something offends your specific set of morals. That is the road back to crowd justice and lynch mobs

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Lets take a look at that in detail shall we ?

No, we shall not, given that you said "In general there are quite restricted limits to taking the law into your own hands - and for good reason", and it was in reply to that that I said "Often those reasons are that TBTB want to misbehave".

Now, as to the 15. Yes, I agree that their actions had moral justification. Was it reasonable, well that's an area wide open to debate - but as far as they went, maybe.

Then your last bit. You are stating that you consider it acceptable to cause criminal damage to the property of someone (or some business) acting fully within the law and in support of lawful actions by officials tasks with enforcing the law. Lets be clear, you wrote "I would consider that they had acted reasonably, and with moral justification, if they had gone even further and damaged the plane". There is no room for misunderstanding there, you are stating that you would consider them justified in causing criminal damage.

Damage, yes.

Criminal? Or reasonable force necessary to prevent a crime being committed? Given how many of the people on that plane who ended up being allowed to remain in the UK it is clear that at the time they were being kidnapped.

Further, your justification for that is that the law and the actions of those enforcing it are morally unacceptable.
Who decides which "moral rules" apply ? If it's morally acceptable to cause criminal damage because you disagree with the law, where does that stop ? Surely, by your logic it would be quite acceptable for ... lets rummage around for an example ... people of some religious beliefs to damage property (eg throw paint on the house, vandalise the car) of of a gay or lesbian couple ? Similarly, by your own argument, it would be acceptable for members of certain groups to damage the salons of anyone who cuts or shaves beards. I could go on - there are many activities that are morally unacceptable to some group or other, and some of those groups have gone down the "militant" route with nasty consequences.

If any of those beliefs tend towards less tolerance then they have no moral worth whatsoever.

Being opposed to same-sex couples is not a different but equally valid morality, it is oppressive, intolerant and illiberal.

With your post, you have demonstrated why we must have strict limits on what people can do in taking the law into their own hands. Without those restrictions, it's a free for all to cause damage (or worse) if something offends your specific set of morals. That is the road back to crowd justice and lynch mobs

Absolutely.

So let's not have any situations where it is the only thing left to do.