1959 which, as originally drafted, was not wide enough to embrace electronic publication. 30. Mr Davies draws our attention to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where Parliament has legislated to criminalise certain categories of conduct regardless of where the offences are committed and whether or not the conduct is illegal in the country in which it is committed. He submits that the absence of any provisions similar to sections 47 – 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the 1986 Act in a clear pointer limiting its extent to England and Wales. 31. Section 42 of the 1986 Act provides that the provisions of the Act extend to England and Wales save for some limited exceptions that mainly relate to Scotland and Northern Ireland. We do not think it assists in taking the present case outside the jurisdiction principle in Wallace Duncan Smith (No 4). We agree with the judge that section 42 is not a restriction of jurisdiction to England and Wales, rather it sets out the limitations imposed by the statute as to its extent within England and Wales. It sets out the extent to which the Act applies within England and Wales. It is not determinative of the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. 32. The position seems to us to be as follows. The conduct the relevant provisions of the Act seek to prevent is the dissemination of material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. In the present case under section 19 we are concerned with publication of such material, to which we shall come in a moment. The reality is that, as expressed by the judge, almost everything in this case related to this country. This is where the appellants operated one in Preston, the other in Hull; this is where the material was generated, edited, uploaded and controlled. The material was aimed primarily at the British public. The only “foreign” element was that the website was hosted by a server in Torrance California and, as the judge observed, the use of the server was merely a stage in the transmission of the material. 33. What is the test for jurisdiction if it is not as set out in Wallace Duncan Smith (No.4)? Mr Davies submitted that there were essentially 3 jurisprudential theories at to publications on the internet. The first is that a publication is only cognisable in the jurisdiction where the web server upon which it is hosted is situated - the country of origin theory. The second is that publication on the internet is cognisable in any jurisdiction in which it can be down-loaded – the country of destination theory. The third is that while a publication is always cognisable in the jurisdiction where the web server upon which it is hosted is situated, it is also cognisable in a jurisdiction at which the publication is targeted – the directing and targeting theory. Since we have come to the clear conclusion that the jurisdiction is governed by the substantial measure principle enunciated by this court in Wallace Duncan Smith (No.4) it is unnecessary for us to explore any of these three theories or the effect of applying them to the facts of this case. It seems to us that the substantial measure test not only accords with the purpose of the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act it also reflects the practicalities of the present case. Publication 34. Before us Mr Davies put publication at the forefront of his argument submitting that if, as he contended was the case, there was no publication that was the end of the case. His argument is that one cannot have a publication without a publishee (or rather