Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:58:24 +0000, Alex Heney
> wrote:
>
>>>> I can see that those offences could be open to abuse by the
>>>> authorities, which worries me, but as written, they are clearly
>>>> talking about things which most people would consider "wrong".
>>>
>>> Could you give an example of something that you believe would be
>>> acceptable to carry out, but unacceptable to talk about carrying out?
>> No.
>>
>> Who said anything about "acceptable"?
>>
>> Or about "talking about" doing something?
>>
>> But there are things which where done without any obvious forethought
>> can be, if not "acceptable", at least considered minor enough to be a
>> mere annoyance, but which if done with forethought and planning are
>> much more serious.
>>
>> "Conspiracy to commit" any act automatically means it has that element
>> of forethought and planning.
>
> OK, then pedant, could you give an example of something that
> you believe that actually doing the act should rightly be legal, but
> conspiring to commit that same act should rightly be illegal?
>
> Because it is my inability to think of a single thing of that nature
> that causes me to believe that the conspiriacy law is in that regard
> quite outrageous.
>
Planning to kill someone by witchcraft. IIUC, it is perfectly legal to
stick pins in a doll. However, conspiring to kill someone is rightfully
illegal.
IIUC, people have been convicted of conspiracy to murder, even though
their chosen method would not actually have harmed their victim.
--
Sue
|