back to article Twitter airport bomb joker loses second job

Paul Chambers, the Twitter joker victim, has been sacked from a second job a week before his appeal against a widely criticised conviction for sending a "threatening" message to to blow Doncaster airport "sky high". Chambers, 27, got into a world of hurt after posting an ill-conceived update on 6 January, after inclement …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Cylindric
    FAIL

    Bonkers

    Bonkers. If I wear a t-shirt saying "I hate you" will I get arrested too?

    1. LinkOfHyrule
      Coat

      Yes!

      Yes, you will. By the Grammar Police! You forgot the full-stop after "you".

      Mines the one that says on it "They've got a week to get their shit together or I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        This is a public information broadcast from the real Grammar Police...

        It seems there are several unfortunate persons impersonating Officers of the Grammar Police.

        These false Officers are usually easy to spot if you pay attention. They tend to make mistakes when correcting poor grammar as in the example below:

        ---

        Yes! → # ↑

        Posted Friday 17th September 2010 09:46 GMT

        Yes, you will. By the Grammar Police! You forgot the full-stop after "you".

        Mines the one that says on it "They've got a week to get their shit together or I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

        ---

        Did you spot the obvious mistake? "Mines the one that says..." should read "Mine's the one..." as it is a contraction of two words - mine and is - which always requires the use of an apostrophe.

        Do not fall victim to these fraudsters, otherwise you will be using apostrophes incorrectly in many ways, such as "I remember the 70's... well actually I don't" when the correct usage should quite clearly be "I remember the '70s...".

        If you suspect you have been a victim of a false Grammar Police Officer, please contact our Public Liaison Officer, Sarah Bee...

        ;)

        1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: This is a public information broadcast from the real Grammar Police...

          Please be aware I am armed.

          1. VinceH

            Letters, Digits.

            I assume you are legged, as well, since it's still a bit too early to be legless.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Headmaster

            Is that...

            "Please be aware. I am armed."

            or

            "Please be aware that I am armed."

            How about a compromise? If you'll settle for

            "Please be aware: I am armed."

            then so will I :)

            1. Tigra 07
              Coat

              Did i win?

              Nobody noticed that i spelt publicly wrong so do i win this for correcting myself?

              1. Scott 53
                Thumb Down

                Re: Did I win?

                You put a hyphen in "full-stop", so you don't win anything.

                1. Just Thinking
                  Joke

                  Grammar Police and apostrophes

                  Can you get done for possession?

          3. ElReg!comments!Pierre
            Grenade

            Armed?

            Lewis called, he want his paperweight back.

        2. LinkOfHyrule

          I swear it's the fault of the Firefox spell checker!

          They ALWAYS pick on me! I swear it's the fault of the Firefox spell checker, I swear! (Which by teh way, wants to correct "Firefox" to "firebox" - see told you it sucks!)

          "Do not fall victim to these fraudsters, otherwise you will be using apostrophes incorrectly in many ways, such as "I remember the 70's... well actually I don't" when the correct usage should quite clearly be "I remember the '70s...".

          Oh, I didn't know I had been shoving the apostrothingy in the wrong place, I shall try to remember that one! So don't say I don't try to learn from my mistakes! You'll probably find something else to pick on me with next week though!

          I wasn't even impersonating you, I was trying to be a good citizen!

          1. peter 45

            Ahem

            teh..>..the

            Cough

        3. CapitalW
          Joke

          I wonder.....

          "...as it is a contraction of two words - mine and is - which always requires the use of an apostrophe."

          Would that be an apostrophe catastrophe?

        4. Paul 106
          Headmaster

          Pedantic bar steward

          Unless they are actually laying mines under the one that says on it.... In that case the grammar is correct.

          I would suggest your initial assumption is correct, but calling the grammar police and convicting someone on an assumption (or locking them up for 42 days without charge) seems a tad judgmental and extreme.

    2. Anton Ivanov
      Flame

      No

      You are not saying whom you hate. So that does not count.

      1. Tigra 07

        Maybe

        You may not get arrested, but you may get punched publically

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      possibly

      But if your the pope you can just call everybody Nazi's and get away with it :\

    4. Daniel B.

      Optimus Prime

      "Bonkers. If I wear a t-shirt saying "I hate you" will I get arrested too?"

      Maybe not, but if you're wearing a Transformers T-Shirt, you will be. Especially if you're in Terminal 5.

  2. Greg D
    WTF?

    I didnt realise he got convicted!!

    This sets a very bad precedent for free speech.

    Hope he gets enough donations to sue the fucking police for this utter disgrace.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sue Who?

      Why would he want to sue the police?

      The *airport* reported him. The police investigated it because they are legally obliged to.

      The police then submitted a report to the Crown Prosecution Service - who made a decision to go ahead with the prosecution.

      The magistrates court convicted him.

      Parliament enacted the law in the first place.

      I don't see why it is solely the police that should get it in the neck.

    2. Martin 49
      Unhappy

      OMG !

      ".....to sue the fucking police....."

      Please tell me they're not policing *that* now too !!

      1. The Beer Monster
        Joke

        @Martin 49

        They've obviously RTFM then.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Gweilo
        Joke

        J O K E

        "This is not about taking away his right to free speech, only about him writing something on Twitter that someone thinks is a threat."

        According to the article, nobody thought it was a real threat. They were criminalising something that was obviously -- to EVERYBODY involved -- a joke. "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is different, it's quite reasonable to assume that's a real warning.

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        FAIL

        Consider.

        "only about him writing something on Twitter that someone thinks is a threat"

        Consider the implication of your phrase starting with "only" and ending with "somebody thinks".

        Consider that you are an utter moron.

  3. Daniel Owen
    Grenade

    Crazy

    Couldn't believe this got media attention to start with AND IT'S STILL GOING ON!!!

    If it could have been considered menacing, then why did they not call in the bomb squad?

    Surely to make a serious threat you have to actually direct it at said establishment?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    out of control

    security paranoia is the norm in aviation now. Security staff have no authority to use their discretion.

    An acquaintance of mine recently landed a conviction and fine for using the 'b-word' in a certain regional airport despite being the partner of a member of staff there and thinking it would be taken in good humour.

    It doesn't help that the security staff love the sense of importance they get from indulging themselves in this behaviour.

    1. Wize

      You do have to leave humour outside the door...

      ...when dealing with security people.

      Anyway, how do you regulate that someone really was joking? Someone bursting into a bank with stocking over their head and waving a fake gun to later claim it was a joke may be thought to be acceptable to some but not everyone.

      Where do you draw the line? Simple answer is at zero to avoid any confusion.

      1. Britt Johnston

        Message from the funny party

        ...but who are these guys who make it prosecutable to attempt a joke?

        And if that must be, can't lack of understanding, intolerance, overstepping the mark and narrow-mindedness be an offence too?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A correction

    Chambers' testimony that the the message was "innocuous hyperbole" was rejected by cretins....

  6. Velv
    Headmaster

    Lack a sense of humour

    Airport TV programme - the guy from Chicago carrying the violin ?

    Security: "What's in the case?"

    Guy: "I'm from Chicago, it's a machine gun (big grin)"

    Cop: "you have right to remain silent, etc"

    Free speech is a right that needs protected. However, with rights come responsibilities, one of which is to remember that not everyone has a sense of humour. While you have the right to say what you want, you have a responsibility to ensure it is taken in the right context, and to the right audience.

    I'm not commenting on the merits of this particular case. Both this case and the guy on Airport highlight what goes wrong when free speech is exercised out of context.

    1. Anton Ivanov

      Depends where

      Once upon a time you could do that in the UK. You cannot today.

      There are places around the world where people at an airport are still sane enough so you can joke about it. My favourite answer to "are you carrying weapons" at Sofia airport is "Nothing short of a couple of 10Megaton Nukes I am afraid". There it causes some chuckles and a wave through.

      I would not try that one at Gatwick though.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Can we have a "pompous twat" icon?

      "free speech is exercised out of context" Wtf are you talking about? Are you American per chance?

      This is a simple case about idiocy. The prosecution has managed to claim that the guy was a threat even though the airport didn't treat him as a threat (other than reporting it). That it's happened this way is embarrassing.

      In your almost completely irrelevant example, any security force that treats someone as a threat purely because they said something puerile, should be removed. Or replaced with an automaton (same problems but a lot cheaper).

      1. Elmer Phud

        But all I said . .

        Was 'Jehovah'!

        1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
          Megaphone

          Re: But all I said . .

          YOU ARE ONLY MAKING THINGS WORSE FOR YOURSELF!!!!!

    3. Darren Poulson
      Grenade

      Actually!

      To be fair, I remember that program. He made the joke and then refused to open the case. After numerous requests to prove he was joking the detained him. Pretty sure this was pre-9/11.

      All he had to do was open the case and he would've got off with a scolding.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I remember that

      I thought the policewoman was going to have an orgasm at the fun she had crapping on that guy's day. She knew it was a joke, the staff knew it was a joke, the viewers knew it was a joke but that pathetic woman, and the sack of shit from United who insisted on the arrest, were revelling in pushing this poor bastard about for no reason.

      Just as the priesthood attracts people who want to be near children, security attracts bullies that like to make people's lives miserable. Fact of life, unfortunately.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    UK is a f...ing joke of a country

    Overrun by histeria, hiprocrey, bulls*it and political correctness rubbish.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Coat

      re: "UK is a f...ing joke of a country"

      Judging by the quality of your comment, you're still somewhat butthurt about the comprehensive education system, I suppose?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      Yep 100% correct

      I wouldn't be suprised if this poor bloke who is clearly getting hounded out of normal life by the authorities for no good reason, completly loses it and finds himself plotting to blow the airport sky high for real!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yep 100% correct

        "I wouldn't be suprised if this poor bloke who is clearly getting hounded out of normal life by the authorities for no good reason, completly loses it and finds himself plotting to blow the airport sky high for real!"

        Well, to a certain extent, that's how terrorists are made: take away a person's or a people's ability to uphold a decent life and they're driven to doing desperate things because they have nothing to lose. Of course the fairytale about terrorism instilled in every aspiring Britard is that terrorists are born evil and are inherently evil ("and that's why we need to be vigilant in our never-ending war on terror, young Britard!"), but actual observations from the real world contradict this. Of course, the fairytale serves as a convenient way to not think about how one's own country might be causing people to become terrorists and thus lets everyone feel even more entitled to their nice lifestyle while advocating blowing other people up with expensive weapons.

    3. Cunningly Linguistic
      Headmaster

      And illiteracy

      That is all

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Troll

      "hiopcrey"

      You've been reading the Daily Mail again, you naughty boy?

      I've warned you about that before.

      Now go to your room.

  8. Cameron Colley

    British justice at its finest.

    A man who has done nothing wrong is now unemployable -- that about sums up the idiocy of this country's legal system.

    In other news, the head of an organisation founded on theft, murder and torture, which is known to cover up child abuse by its members and is happy to encourage behaviour which leads to the passing on of sexually transmitted diseases is treated like royalty.

    Double standards?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      minor misconception there fella

      "and is happy to encourage behaviour which leads to the passing on of sexually transmitted diseases"

      fair enough on the other points, but you're a little off the mark on the last one. The pontiff's positon is :

      birth control is bad

      banging anyone and everyone with a pulse is bad

      and if you avoid doing the second thing then sti's aren't really a problem.

      Anyone who thinks the catholic church encourages the transmission of sti's has been listening to Peter Tatchell too long

      1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: minor misconception there fella

        'misconception' tee hee etc.

      2. Cameron Colley

        RE: minor misconception there fella

        In a perfect world where everyone did everything expected of them you have a point.

        However, people will have sex with other people outside of marriage -- even supposed catholics can, and do, give in to weakness. A good catholic, however, on giving in to weakness and having sex outside of marriage will not want to compound this by wearing a condom -- it's also a pretty good excuse not to wear on if you don't want to.

        You see, carrying condoms and being prepared to use them is an intellectual decision -- having sex because you're a little drunk, or bored, or just plain horny is not an intellectual decision.

        There is also the fact that catholicism is responsible for quite a lot of anti-condom feeling around the world -- making it harder for non catholics to get condoms.

        So I stand by my point that the catholic church is encouraging the passing on of STIs -- it might not be a stated policy, but that's the net result.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Up

          Well said

          And it looks like your (And the previous) post have hit a small nerve (judging by the down voters) - I expect that none of the down voters watched the linked video (or even wanted to....nah-nah-nah - not listening- nah -nah.)

          PS. Just watched 'Religulous'....fantastic. I recommend to everybody.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Up

          To all the down-voters of this post....I quote.

          "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the Pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon, where he began a seven-day pilgrimage on the continent. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

          Internationally, people were stunned at the Pope's scientific ignorance and indifference to human suffering.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        Is this comment in the right place?

        Anyway.

        "Anyone who thinks the catholic church encourages the transmission of sti's has been listening to Peter Tatchell too long"

        You talk rubbish sir. The catholic church actively campaigns in Africa STATING THAT CONDOMS CAUSE AIDS. May I direct you to the following - which is EXCELLENT

        http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbvr0m_shortfilms

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.