Bonkers
Bonkers. If I wear a t-shirt saying "I hate you" will I get arrested too?
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 …
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...
;)
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!
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.
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.
This post has been deleted by its author
"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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
"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).
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.
"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.
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?
"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
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.
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.
"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.
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