Clarkson: 'I WILL find and KILL the spammers who hacked me'
Motormouth Top Gear star Jeremy Clarkson has joked he will kill the spammers who took his Twitter account on a joyride to tout dodgy diet pills. Several tweets appeared on his feed promoting miracle weight-loss medicine. But the stunt may backfire on the Twitter-jackers: rather than delete the spam and reset his password, …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Stupid little boy
With your lack of grammar it appears maybe you also should go back to school.
Re: Stupid little boy
"Your so stupid and eager"
Irony Police, arrest this "man"..
Re: Stupid little boy
"Then we'll see what a big, clever grown-up boy he is."
Sorry, I couldn't hear what abuse you were dishing over the sound of your Anon icon...
Re: Stupid little boy
"Big boys don't post AC! for a start ..."
Who's to say Anonymous isn't related to Noel?
Re: Stupid little boy
Not to mention s.16, Offences Against The Person Act, 1861, which provides...
"16 Threats to kill.
A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."
Mr. Clarkson said (words to the effect that) he'd "find them and kill them". Doesn't matter if he was quoting someone or something, he's made the comment in a manner where it's possible that someone could actually believe that he's going to set out to do it. And that, children, is an offence.
He really, truly, has to learn to curb his voice of his incredibly stupid and thoughtless remarks somewhat drastically. The consequences of his carrying on regardless could be profoundly embarrassing to him, at the very least, and drastically lifestyle-changing at the worst, if the law decides to do something about it.
While we're on the topic of life changing events, let's also not forget that the kind of organised folks who hack these accounts tend to have strong ties to some of the less friendly mutual benefit societies around the globe, many of which don't give two hoots about putting two (frequently more) rounds into the head of journalistic types, with or without provocation.
And no, while I'm most definitely not a fan of his, I wouldn't want to see him catch lead for being a complete fool.
Re: Stupid little boy
"...Doesn't matter if he was quoting someone or something, he's made the comment in a manner where it's possible that someone could actually believe that he's going to set out to do it. ..."
er..no. The Act you quote requires intent ("...a threat, intending that...") which be hard to prove given he's quoting a film. I think they could do him under the s127 of the Communications Act but the DPP's guidelines for s127 suggest it would need to be a credible threat - so even that is touch and go.
Of course the biggest problem would be identifying the "victim" - who if they did come forward would have to admit to a criminal offence themselves.
Re: Stupid little boy
All he needs to do is run them over with his car. £35 fine, even if he kills them. 'It was a tragic accident', he could say in his defence.
Re: Stupid little boy
A better defense for that would be, "I'm sorry officer but couldn't control the POWER!!"
While doing a he-man pose
Re: Stupid little boy
Seperate fact from perception:
I am not a lawyer... but
1) Whilst it may be an exemption to commit crime (within reason) for the purposes of detecting or preventing crime.
2) I do question if his supposed 'threat' could be classed as righteous rage.
3) How Mr Clarkson conducts himself publicly has been called into question before.
Perception: Mr Clarkson is somewhat right to be angry, as I'm sure most users of any service would be, had it happened to them? However I dont believe any 'threat' to be withstanding, since there doesnt seem to be evidence within the article, of 'pre-meditation' or a 'realistic means' of carrying out the supposed 'threat'... given the expected 'heightened emotional response' that would come from such?
I could be wrong about all of that though, simply because I am not familiar with any specifics surrounding the instance, but its just suggestion.
@Helena Handcart: Re: Stupid little boy
As in he is a bit shouty and has invaded Poland recently?
Re: Stupid little boy
> Your so stupid
No further comment.
Re: Stupid little boy
"let's also not forget that the kind of organised folks who hack these accounts tend to have strong ties to some of the less friendly mutual benefit societies around the globe, many of which don't give two hoots about putting two (frequently more) rounds into the head of journalistic types, with or without provocation."
Fortunately, this isn't a nation where journalists get shot in the face by criminals for saying rude things about them.
Re: Stupid little boy
Sigh.... Talking about age, I remember a time where the comments section on El Reg wasn't like reading slashdot comments.....
He quoted a film?
Well that's infringing Holywood's intellectual property rights, which is a crime far worse than murder! Send him to the tower for the rest of his natural life, with no possibility of parole! It's the only language these freetards understand!
Re: Stupid little boy
At least is wasn't all capital letters.
Re: Stupid little boy
and while we are about it, lets just check the cell tower locations of Mr & Mrs Klaxons phones at the time <ahem>_she_ got all those speeding tickets.
Re: @Helena Handcart: Stupid little boy
With the new VW Scirrocco... wasn't it Germany to Warsaw in one tank?
Re: Stupid little boy
"At least is wasn't all capital letters."
.. or rAndOm COmbinaTIons of tHeM
Re: Stupid little boy
Well - not really. Because the law you quoted says "intending that the other would fear it would be carried out...".
In other words: the test is what Clarkson intended them to believe, not what they took it into their heads to believe. It would be trivially easy for his lawyer to argue "my client is well known for shooting his mouth off about all kinds of things and has never been known to follow through on a threat of serious violence, there was never any question that anyone would seriously feel threatened by him."
At which point, there's no case to answer, and no evidence to suggest otherwise. Indeed, if required, I'm sure the lawyer could come up with several other examples of the defendant making similar threats in a similar tone, none of which were ever meant seriously.
Re: @Helena Handcart: Stupid little boy
I think it was Berlin to Warsaw in one tank.
Re: Stupid little boy
Asked a former police colleague about this one, he said the purpose is that say for example someone tried to say kick out a window with the aim of criminal damage or robbing the contents of whats behind it, but the glass is far too strong to be kicked out (i.e. making the crime impossible), they can still be prosecuted. So you can probably threaten to kill Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Linus (not Torvalds!) or any other peanuts character you wish with immunity from prosecution.
Has nobody seen Taken? His Tweet is a joke reference to Liam Neeson's character.
Has nobody seen Taken? His Tweet is a joke reference to Liam Neeson's character.
Oh so when it's a 'celebrity' it's clearly a joke, but when it's some joe nobody making a daft tweet in an airport it's what size is your inside leg sir? We need it to measure up your new orange jumpsuit
I think the point Roby was making is that it's not about him being a celebrity but more about the fact that since he's paraphrasing a well known film, it becomes far more obvious that it was not an actual threat.
Just like if I said that my opinion of Apple was "to nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure", most people would realise I was paraphrasing a film quote and not actually intending to engage in a nuclear weapons attack in Cupertino.
Where as if I said "Off to see some dodgy Russians later to buy a nuke to blow Apple HQ up" it would be far easier to think I might actually try and do that.
Regardless, the bit where he says "Unlike some people, I WILL find who hacked my account." adds a serious context to threat and should land him in trouble.
Where as if I said "Off to see some dodgy Russians later to buy a nuke to blow Apple HQ up" it would be far easier to think I might actually try and do that.
Please, tell us more :)
Ok ok, I admit it, it was actually some dodgy Iranians.
NB. Again on the point of context making the difference this is clearly a reply to an early post and I've used the joke alert icon.
Do try to keep up. Mr Airport was given the all clear, and plod has been told to lighten the fuck up.
Took years though to get to that point - here's hoping they've learned from it
I was right with you until...
and not actually intending to engage in a nuclear weapons attack in Cupertino.
:D
No, when it's a widely recognised quote from a hit movie it's a joke.
When it's a tongue-in-cheek but random statement, then it's just the Police having a sense of humour failure in extremis and wasting public money in the process.
Re: Whats he gonna do?
Yeah or ridicule their choice of car based upon its BHP, 0-60 etc. Because you really need a high performance car on our dreadful congested roads.
Re: Whats he gonna do?
Apparently they're for 'overtaking safely'.
So, will he get the same
As that poor sod who tweeted his dissatisfaction about Robin Hood(?) airport ?
Or, by some miracle will the lazy, fickle, farting & feckless establishment decide it wasn't a credible threat.
Re: So, will he get the same
Its fine. It sets precedent for not taking action on joke spoutings, as taking on a celebrity with an platform is a whole different proposition to taking on some no-name tweeter.
Dumb law, made to look so.
It's Clarkson...
That means that statements will be illogical, "masculine", improbable, or even downright impossible. But they *will* be flamboyant.
The headline has this text 'I WILL find and KILL the spammers who hacked me' in quotes.
I thought quotes were used when, you know, quoting what someone said. Not for when you're paraphrasing and using your own emphasis on the word KILL. And failing to include the quote from the movie which puts a more humorous angle on the rest of the quote.
"GET A LIFE!"
This coming from the person whom appears to be competing with Eadon for the most downvoted user ever, and one whom once complained about the lack of discussion here!
Re: "whom"
I gave you one up and one down.
Whom -> who - correct
'Anonymous Coward Pedantic Grammar Nazi' - your timidity is frowned upon... The Pedantic Grammar Nazi Party do not hide behind anonymity.
And if you look real close , using saying the hubble telescope, you might , and I just say might , see me giving a flying ..
Christ I hate half term!
OK by me
Hackers are menace, a scourge that needs to be dealt with. If Jackson wants to kill them it's fine by me
Re: OK by me
Janet Jackson, in the Reliant Stadium, with a wardrobe malfunction.
Re: OK by me
"Janet Jackson, in the Reliant Stadium, with a wardrobe malfunction"
Dis-Robin' in the Reliant?
Re: OK by me
>Janet Jackson, in the Reliant Stadium, with a wardrobe malfunction.
Did you have to? You thoughtless moron. You've set my recovery back by at least a year.
This topic is closed for new posts.
