Here's the problem Nick: you say "ah but the Grenfell one was different" - which I don't disagree with actually. In part due to the reasons you cite.Nick Burrows wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:19 amIf indeed, it was as I described - a joke intended solely for friends with entirely unintended consequences - then a criminal conviction is disproportionate.
But then you immediately say that the case of this thread would be disproportionate for reasons that exactly describe the Grenfell case.
So are we saying that one we prosecute and one we don't ... because we don't want to? Because that's no basis for a system of law.
Also: you seem to be suggesting that the criminal concept of "recklessness" should just be ignored in this case. Again, I don't think we can just pick and choose when we apply the law and when we don't. Same is true for the "in other circumstances nobody would have been bothered" argument. Again, I don't disagree with it per se, but the same is equally true for every single possible criminal offence up to and including murder.
Of course all this is hypothetical for the moment whilst the situation is still playing out beyond our legal jurisdiction. I don't know the Spanish, "Well it was just foolish teenage bantz so let's say no more about it" but I doubt we're going to hear it any time soon.
They're hardly going to want to say
"It's open season for jokes that cost us 000000s of euros we don't mind paying up - and no we're not going to just ignore stuff like this because can you imagine all the aggro we'd get if did and it turned out to be a real threat?"
are they?