[krona]

Section 127(2): A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

  a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false

[teamonkey]

Again, the ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence. Good news! You can still post bad takes and disinformation online!

But you can’t abuse people with it. For example sending a hate mob on someone, defamation, swatting etc. (which are also covered by other acts).

And again, S127 is problematic because it doesn’t clearly define a line, it leaves it up to the courts on a case-by-case basis. Much of British common law is like that though.

[krona]

I think you're grossly underestimating the CPSs ability to misinterpret legislation when it's convenient. On convictions:

> ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence

It takes 5 years on average to exhaust domestic remedies. Then another 3 years (on average) for the ECHR to hear your case. Needless to say, you can't afford it anyway.

[teamonkey]

I’m not underestimating, I said it was a problem several times, and also said it should be changed.

Codifying it wouldn’t help it being abused though, and the US court system also has such problems, it takes time to prove that a right is being breached and a lot is down to the judge.

Also, there are strict limits to how long you can be fined or imprisoned under S127. The majority of cases result in small fines.