Puzzling

It appears (from the AP report at least) that he is now denying sending the message. I could understand him changing his plea to not guilty on the grounds that the tweet did not constitute a threatening message, but how can he expect to be taken seriously in denying something he had previously admitted?

If he's going for the old favourite "somebody hacked my twitter account to send a single message" plea, then it would only be credible had he not previously admitted to sending the message. Entering a plea of not guilty could well mean that the bench decide that he needs to be referred for a jury trial, so maybe it's some sort of delaying tactic.

The legal angle ...

as the old saying goes, I'm not a lawyer, but ... here's someone who is, and has thought about it:

http://www.thelawyer.com/the-twitter-%E2%80%9Cbomb-hoax%E2%80%9D-case-worse-than-we-thought?/1003651.article

Re: Puzzling

All we know is that he's pleading not guilty to the charge - that could mean admitting he sent the tweet but arguing that it wasn't "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character."

@courts

The courts better let him off or I'm gonna blow them all sky high.

Is the guy an idiot - almost certainly by anyones definition.

But as a counter argument to the people saying it's a waste of police time and the case should be thrown out.

1) It's his choice to plead not guilty, prolonging the case and wasting court time and money, to an incident which he previously admitted to.

2) If you're one of the people who has their trip/holiday b*ggered up because of a need to investigate a suspicious parcel (idiot forgot luggage) or verify a suspected threat (idiot makes bomb related comment) - I suspect you may not be so charitable and forgiving.

3) It's easier to find a needle in a haystack, if you cut down on the idiots tipping more straw on top - and comments like this persons are adding to the pile.

I do think jail time is probably not the best sentence for him - esp if it's suspended (which negates the deterent in my opinion) - but a hefty fine would concentrate his mind wonderfully

He could do the right thing, admit he was an idiot, plead mercy and walk away from it with a valuable lesson for the future about the consequences of being a kn*b

The real question...

...is "what constitutes public vs private communication?"

Certainly, my highly visited website about the Beijing Tea Market would be considered public if I posted a "threatening message" there, but what about my family genealogy website? It's equally open to the public, but is visited less, which could open up a slippery slope of determining at what traffic level a "private" website becomes "public".

How about facebook and twitter, where the user can control the visibility of what they write? Surely, if my privacy settings only allow my friends and family to see my comments, then that should be considered private communication, in my opinion, but I'll bet the government would disagree.

If the government can decide what is public vs private arbitrarily, then what's to stop them from deciding that your phone call to your friend down the street is no longer private? What's to stop them from saying that your pillow talk with your spouse is no longer private? Clearly, what I say to my wife in our bed is no business of the government, but at what point does their right to classify our communications as public or private stop?

I hope this case addresses some of these issues, though I'm sure that ultimately it will just result, as it always does, with the little guy bending over as we slowly erode our freedoms.

Of course, there's always that question of whether people that are going to blow up airports warn them first...but that's just crazy talk...

Brits, be careful what you say

Brits, keep yourself anonymous, watch what you say, in case some asshole pretends it is a real threat, or fakes 'being scared'. The consequences of that are so serious you may never shake them off, you may appear on secret lists, have your private info examined and shared freely, or be locked up if you refuse to assist in the fishing expedition that follows, or have a dirty picture on your PC.

You are in the UK FFS, if it's one thing you've learned by now it's to avoid hypothetical conversations, jokes, idle threats, double entendre, anything that can be used against you.

HE IS NOT GUILTY, the charge against him is that he SENT THREATS. He did not SEND it and it was not a THREAT, it was clearly bluster, I won't even call it an 'idle threat', because a threat needs to be directed to be a threat. So he is not guilty in any sense, and the charges against him are clearly malicious.

Welcome to NuLabour, watch your words carefully.

Perspective

Go to twitter, type "I'm going to kill" in to the search box and click search - be careful not to click post as you may well find yourself up for prosecution under the same act as this chap is being charged.

Now type in "I'm going to blow up"

Now type in "I'm going to bomb"

Now type in "I'm going to rape"

Now type in "I'm going to hurt"

Now type in "I'm going to punch"

Now type in "I'm going to steal"

How many of those people in the search results does the CPS intend to charge? It'd certainly help to meet government targets.

Hell, TheWileyOnes has stated on twitter, just 8 hours ago as I type this that: "In memory of Peter Graves: I'm going to steal a 747 to crash into that big glass window at LAX." - I'm scared, better get on to the authorities now ... it's just as credible.

I think perhaps we should get a little bit of perspective and put the common sense filter on for a moment.