THE THOUSANDS OF UNREPORTED CRIMES WHICH TAKE PLACE IN BRIDGE CLUBS ALL ACROSS THE UK............... ( Article by Carp ) 

The sad fact about life is that not all crimes which take place are reported to, or recorded by, the police. Yet what is even more shocking is that inside every bridge club in the land, serious crimes against the person are being committed when duplicate sessions are in play. Both the offending players and their chosen victims, usually their hapless and inept partners, seem oblivious to the law of the land. Offenders seem completely unaware of what breaches they have committed, and the victims seem equally unaware of what legal remedies they have with regards to such cruel and unforgiving conduct.
Assault, of course,  still remains both a civil wrong and a crime, but in 1997 parliament introduced the Protection From Harassment Act. Section 1 states the following : " A person must not pursue a course of conduct, which amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of the other. "  
So when one considers how many bridge players relentlessly condemn, slag off, insult, belittle, slate, ridicule, humiliate, nag away, blame, reproach, find fault with, rebuke, deride, lambast, remonstrate, and denigrate their partners, the fact that these crimes go unreported simply beggars belief. Indeed, all these aggressive actions amount to the same thing : unacceptable, unforgivable, extreme " harassment ". No doubt if any outsider had  looked in to see what was going on inside any bridge club, then he might well reach the inescapable conclusion that such places are teeming with sadistic bullies and masochistic wimps.
So how best to define this type of conduct ? : it is both a nasty tort and a callous crime. In fact, all that is required to establish a " course of conduct " is that the conduct only has to take place on two occasions. But more significantly, the conduct can include just speech or gestures alone.  All the victim has to show is that the harassment caused him ( or her ) alarm, or distress.
Even if the perpetrator claimed he did not know that his conduct amounted to harassment, then the objective test to be applied is that of the reasonable man, who happens to be in full possession of the same information about the alleged misconduct. If he believes it amounted to harassment, then as far as the judge is concerned it certainly was.
As for the civil remedies available  ( interested readers please note ) , any actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the alleged victims of the course of conduct in question. On such a claim, damages may be awarded for ( among other things ) any anxiety caused by the harassment, and any financial loss resulting from the harassment. Damages are usually for personal, psychological injury, and seemingly for pure economic loss. In addition, injunctions may be granted to reduce the risk of any further incidents.
So the message is clear. Bridge clubs are hot spots for widespread criminal activity.  And if bullies there continue to harass others, then they do so at their peril.  Wimps, who are desperate to fight back, now know they can now sue the bastards, if the harassment doesn't cease.