Twitter bomb joker found guilty A man who jokingly threatened to blow Doncaster airport "sky high" back in January has been found guilty of sending a threatening message. Paul Chambers, 26, posted the misconceived microblogging update on 6 January, after bad weather forced the Yorkshire airport to shut up shop a week before he was due to fly to Ireland. The …
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/free-press-news/Jury-to-decide-fate-of.6277624.jp
However, instead of attacking someone who has publicly commented on this forum with the potential of ridicule, maybe you should stop being an AC and voice your thoughts? After all it's easier to shoot someone down from the anonymity offered by AC than it is to let yourself be known for your thoughts.
Two notable things about this case - firstly that Paul Chambers wasn't convicted of a terrorism offence, therefore it couldn't be argued that he caused any security scare or disruption, or that his message was taken as a gesture of intent to bomb an airport. If he was, he could have argued his case and won. The fact that he was convicted under the 2003 Communications act makes the decision even more sinister. Secondly, he was tried by magistrates rather than a judge and jury. Magistrates have become the PCOS's of the judicial system. They are by and large untrained, legally illiterate political appointees, frightened to come to any decision that might upset the state or media.
It is no accident that the Government who passed the nasty Communications Act (amongst many other equally oppressive laws) is the same one that has put in a concerted effort to abolish jury trials and massively increase the recruitment of magistrates. Real judges, the High Court and House of Lords (despite the bad press they all get) have been fighting a quiet, dignified but ultimately losing battle against abuse of power by the state for years.
If the State, and by extension it's burgeoning bloc of patrons in the Police, CPS or Judiciary want to bring you down, the whole system is geared towards allowing them to do so. Chamber's conviction is likely to be quashed on appeal. In the meantime, hopefully a change of UK Government might help redress the damage that has been done to civil liberties over the last decade.
Well said Jez. If I could vote for you as Prime Minister I would (*) but you will have to settle for a thumbs up.
All the crazies who want to be "tough on crime" and support the punishment with phrases like "threaten to blow up an airport and you deserve everything" should note that there was NO claim by the CPS that this was a terrorist related offence - as obviously that would be too easy for him to have defended.
Instead, rather than be seen to waste police time, they waste even more and prosecute under the Communications Act.
Evil and malicious with extra added helpings of spite.
Shame on them all.
-
(*) It seems unfair that I cant vote for you when Nick Clegg gets to pick whoever he wants...
He was fined £385, which while it's more that £200 it's not like they sent him to prison. The fact that the bench awarded £600 costs against him probably has more to do with the fact that he changed his plea than the offence of which he was found guilty.
@Seven_Spades - Interesting definition of sarcasm and not one that's to be found in any of the dictionaries on my bookshelves. At best the tweet could be claimed to be ironic, but as has often been pointed out irony (and, indeed, sarcasm) is hard to detect in the written word, especially when shorn of context. The problem with irony or sarcasm in a tweet is that the very medium ensures that there is no hint of context.
I'm truly shocked at the number of comments supporting this guy!
Don't get me wrong, there's too many people too paranoid about pedos/terrorists/bogeymen but WTF did he expect? Prosecution may seem a bit too far, but think about it;
Step 1) You post a message on the net (in jest or otherwise) saying you're going to blow up an airport
Step 2) It gets noticed
Whether you posted in jest or not, there's going to be an investigation to see if it could be a real threat. So a simple joke is now costing the tax payer money.
If anything the tw*t should have been done for wasting police time.
On the plus side, at least he had to pay costs so it hasn't cost the taxpayer as much as it could have done.
Ridiculous as this case may seem, it would be pretty f*cking ridiculous if true terrorists were able to avoid detection/investigation by posting in a sarcastic tone. It's shite but the guy should consider actually thinking before he goes anywhere near his keyboard.
Let the flames begin, but I don't care I have an asbestos coat!
... someone saying something of sense. Humour can not be detected online...
Imagine a terrorist newsgroup online being written with "LOL" after every instruction and target, does that mean it is all in jest and should be ignored?
You are an adult, live with the consequences of your actions!
"Imagine a terrorist newsgroup online being written with "LOL" after every instruction and target, does that mean it is all in jest and should be ignored?"
You see, normal people have the ability to parse text and get a feel for what is, and what isnt meant in jest.
If the terrorist newsgroup never once made a reference to terrorism or any other form of violent extreemist action, previously and then suddenly said "lets bomb the embassy LOL" it would be different from one which constantly espouses such behaviour.
"You are an adult, live with the consequences of your actions!"
So lets track down who ever whined to th the authorites about the tweet and have them arrested (not only have they wasted police time but they potentially sparked of a terrorist incident that could have closed the airport, they are not innocent of the outcome so they should live with the consequences of their actions).
Lets track down every policeman involved and prosecute them. What about the people who run twitter, lets get them as well.
Alternatively we can all try to live like normal human beings and not shit ourselves at the thought of the bogeyman.
Probably the investigation itself.
If you think about it;
The Investigating Officer needs to be trained in the area
Better training usually = better pay (though not always)
And that's before you consider that he was ordered to pay the £600 costs of the CPS. I still think they'd have been better doing him for wasting police time, but the reality remains that the guy did a stupid thing and he's had to pay for it.
If you're wondering why I believe the costs of the court case are less than the Investigation. Keep in mind most of the preparation will have been done by a civil servant of grade E1/E2 earning less than £10 an hour (trust me, I know this is true no matter what the DM may claim!). Obviously it'll have been a solicitor on the day, which will mount costs up.
In comparison, most Terror Investigation Officers are Grade C2 (there may be some D's) which is 2 Grades above the E1 (3 above E2). So knowing that, which do you think cost more?
Whether you think his joke was funny or not, you can't deny there's a large element of paranoia about terrorism in this country. Do you think it's smart to put your neck on the line by pretending to be one (whether in a humourous one line or otherwise).
The idea that it needs an investigation by an intelligence agency to work out if this is a disgruntled attempted tourist or the culmination of weeks of terrorist plotting:
"Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"
Given that it's a well know fact that terrorists speak in code, it's hardly surprising it was passed to a competent agency to investigate (Competent obviously referring to their area of expertise - no judgement on how they discharge their duties).
The comment could be a joke, or it could be a true terrorist stating that he's going to hit the airport next week (not necessarily Robin Hood Airport either). If you argue that the code is likely to be more complex, I'd agree with you in general. But keep in mind, not all will have been probably trained/be that smart and may consider it cryptic enough.
Hell the blatantness of it could even be a double bluff (i.e. no-one's going to suspect it because it's hidden in plain view)
"If anything the tw*t should have been done for wasting police time."
But he wasnt. Why is that?
"Ridiculous as this case may seem, it would be pretty f*cking ridiculous if true terrorists were able to avoid detection/investigation by posting in a sarcastic tone."
Oh Noe, TRUE TERRORISTS - the really scary ones, that feel the need to advertise their attacks via Twitter on twitter streams with no prior history of any terrorist involvement. Yes, we have to be frightened of them, dont we. Especially as MI5 has a huge amount of credible reporting saying Robin Hood Airport is about to be attacked.
What you are saying is because some **** saw a tweet and decided to report it to the police (probably for a laugh) someone should have their career ended. Seriously?
The terrorists have won.
This guy was/is plainly an idiot for posting such a message but if the CPS and other elements of law enforcement and judiciary in that part of the world have budget enough to waste on such utterly useless prosecution then they have just marked themselves as a primary target in the forthcoming round of drastic cuts in public expenditure. Some of them may soon be joining this chap down at the Jobcentre.
Don't mess with football!
If I were to say
"If that slimy lying torture supporter basterd becomes the next PM I'm gonna shoot him in the cock" I suspect I would be guilty of some kind of crime.
If I were to say instead
"If that slimylying torture supporter basterd becomes the next PM I hope he gets shot in the cock"
I'm fine? Or would that be insighting someone to commit an act of something or another?
Yeah, taking this all the way to court was a waste of tax payers money. However, the fines should have still been given.
Joke or Not, someone had to investigate to make sure this wasn't an ACTUAL threat... fines pay for that person's salary.
If you want to be an idiot and say openly on the internet that you're going to blow something up, you deserve whatever you get coming to you. Because the second law enforcement DOESN'T take a threat with some level of seriousness we get another tradegy where hunderds are killed.
An "ordinary citizen" doesn't do shit like this, especially when they're 26 and (presumably) can shave, cook for themselves and vote.
If I were the judge, I'd have locked him up for four years.
And as for his criminal record messing up his life:
A. Well you shouldn't have become a criminal, should you young man. Especially when you're old enough to be a dad looking for secondary school placements.
B. You can still get a job in a factory.
C. Just tell any prospective employers, "Yeah whatever. Well, like, I was only just having a laugh, innit, yeah? And seriously though, no one, like, takes criminal records seriously in 2K10, innit? You get me, yeah?", and I'm sure they'll see sense and give you the job after all.
D. Behave yourself in the future.
E. Don't worry, the collective effort of a few hundred imaginary friends clicking on an online petition will overturn the full majesty of the law and get you your job and girlfriend back.
Sorry, if this was a 16-year-old, I'd have sympathy. But the police and the CPS took one look at this 26-year-old man and did the right thing. Just think for a minute, if they didn't, they'd effectively be giving a green light for every other prat living in a fantasy world of second-hand childish banalities, to spout even more crap onto the Interwebs.
This post has been deleted by its author
In AUS it is specifically an offence to make comments that a reasonable person might reasonably believe is a threat to blow up an airport.
And there are warning signs about that posted in every airport.
And people do get arrested, and prosecuted, in great numbers (well, 100s over the last 10 years)
And none of them have ever been found to have actually been making a threat.
Which ought to raise the question, at what point does it no longer become reasonable to believe a threat? I mean, even if he is wearing a burka and carrying his shoes in his hands, surely by now they would have noticed that it is not reasonable to take these jokers seriously?
Although I am told that most if not all of these idiots were booked after repeating the 'joke' to security staff, that still doesn't mean we have to waste court time on them.
Odd that it's in the public interest to give it the full Monty for an inadvisable but ultimately harmless public comment, yet those who wilfully reamed the taxpayer senseless for year after year with dodgy expense and wage claims largely avoid prosecution, as it's not in the public interest. I suspect we all know well which version of justice the public would be interested in seeing done.
This sort of attitude to law enforcement makes for a great environment for those who wish to shop a pesky neighbour for littering, but a lousy one for those who might wish to report a genuine crime. and it makes Britain a slightly more depressing country to live in.
Any decent risk management would have determined he just said something stupid. We don't lock people up for saying stupid things under normal circumstances.
But you know what? If I had said something stupid on Twitter and had the police round and was looking at a fine and job loss etc... the first thing to go would be my Twiter account, lesson learned. Apparently not in this case.
Still, at least it got the police out and about and whilst they were dealing with this guy they weren't harrassing any photograhers or performing a stop and search on Mark Thomas just for smiling.
Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
14 year habitually say a do things which land them in hot water and claim that they were "only joking" as if that makes it OK. One of the things we learn when we grow up is to know when a joke is appropriate and when it's a bloody stupid idea. By the time most of us are in our twenties we've figured out what is and is not a correct forum for our "jokes".
"By the time most of us are in our twenties we've figured out what is and is not a correct forum for our jokes."
Yeah, and no right minded person *ever* mucks about on Twitter. Twitter's SERIOUS, man!
No-one who took this seriously should be involved in airport security or police investigations. They are just too stupid.
Good to see the CPS have plenty of time to bring this non-case to court, yet they can't even decide if it's in the publics interest to bring Phorm and BT to court for real crimes. How long have they been reviewing the evidence in that case? 1 and a half years? One dumb rule for the man on teh street and another for corporate entities.
Its about time some people were made examples of, the internet is a medium just like any other and what people say on it needs to be responsible and they should be held accountable for it.
Libel/Slander/Defamation laws do exist on the internet, as do other laws. Think before you post. As someone else quite rightly said, no one in the right mind would stand on a soap box in the centre of town and say what Paul Chambers said. The internet is NOT the wild west anymore, laws ARE applicable.
"As someone else quite rightly said, no one in the right mind would stand on a soap box in the centre of town and say what Paul Chambers said."
On the contrary, I'm pretty sure that comedians make similar remarks in the national media (both print and broadcast) on a weekly basis. Context is everything, and this was a Tweet from a pissed off traveller in response to an airport closure.
The major problem here is that too many people think that the likes of Twitter and Facebook and all that other social networking cock are somehow private, and that somehow things you post on their are no more public than a telephone conversation. The news is full of people who have been sacked or prosecuted or otherwise come to grief because of their web 2.0 postings, but these cock ends still don't get it. It isn't private it's there for anybody to view.
I'm sure we all know some fucktard who's ended up in a fight because of some unguarded remark made in a public place, most usually a drinking establishment. Imagine every social networking site to be that pub, but where your words hang in the air for months or even years after you said them. Imagine some bloke going into the pub months after you were there, hearing what you said about his sister and popping round to your house with his mates to give you a good kicking. That's social networking.
It's reasonable to assume that your email communication will be fairly private. Had he sent that message to a friend and that friend had forwarded it to the airport then it would be a reasonable defence, or at least a plea in mitigation, that the communication was private. However posting it on a public web site and believing it to be private is niaive in the extreme.
Since this bloke has already shown himself to be hopelessly immature so there's no suprise that niaive to.
What do you REALLY think would happen if you did plonk a soapbox down in the middle of a town centre and vent your frustration at an airport that had just canned your flight? Seriously?
I strongly suspect the police would question you but, unless they found (or created) evidence to the contrary you'd just be told not to be a prat and sent on your way - unless you aggravated them of course*. Then they might decide you were genuinely attempting to incite terrorism and use the full extent of the law to fuck you right over.
Funny thing is though - it's perfectly OK for the God botherers to threaten me with eternal damnation, via loud-hailer, or everyone else on the street when we're just minding our own business walking through town. If I wasn't so wary of getting involved with the police, ever, I might try reporting one for threatening my eternal soul.
*this can be done in any number of ways, owning a camera or even just looking at them "a bit funny" is apparently enough.
Why do so many people think Free Speech means you can say what you want with no consequence?
Joke or no -- and I challenge *anyone* to prove, given the tweet in question, BEFORE it had been explained that is was in jest, that it was indeed a joke-- he still assaulted every single person working in and travelling through the airport by "saying" something that would put them in fear for their own safety.
Plus, the idiot didn't do himself any favours with his childish attitude after the fact, so they probably decided to prosecute just to spite him.
Innocent until proven guilty means they dont have to prove the tweet was in jest, they have to prove malicious intent.
Notice he wasnt charged with terrorist related activity.
How many people travelling through the airport or working there felt in danger?
What sort of fcuked up society do we live in where people are so frightened of evil terrorists that we can no longer identify a stream of pressure-releasing ranting. Do *you* or anyone else really think that terrorist groups suddenly, out of the blue, post advance warnings of their intent? Seriously?
There are a lot of commentards here who really, really need to get laid.
Hmmm... Paul Chambers did not intend the message as a threat, and the airport manager who first found the message didn't either.
(From the article: "Off-duty manager Shaun Duffield who stumbled across the offending Tweet days after it was made told a court on Monday that the message was not taken as a credible threat and had no operational effect on the airport." From the Telegraph: "He alerted airport security head Steven Armson who said he graded the threat level of the message as "non credible" but had no choice but to pass it on to police Special Branch")
So far, harmless jobsworthiness. Following procedures. No real harm done.
Yet Paul Chambers was barred from the airport, according to other press reports at the time. Was this just some spiteful or anal-retentive jobsworth who barred him? What sort of person thinks a bad taste joke deserves a ban? Such penalties should not be handed out secretly - who made that call? Name names!
Then the CPS decided that there should be a prosecution under the Communications Act. They considered that he had used a "public communications network" and sent a "threatening message" and that prosecution was in the public interest, and an appropriate use of (scarce) resources. Or maybe they thought they could get a quick conviction and make their monthly quota. Whatever. The individual who made this clearly inappropriate and abusive call should be named and shamed.
Maybe he should have gone for a Jury trial - or have Labour removed that right?
The District Judge Jonathan Bennett found Chambers guilty of sending a message by means of a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003. Mr Bennett said: "I am therefore satisfied, so that I am sure, that the defendant sent the message via Twitter and it was of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live.
"Furthermore I am satisfied the defendant was, at the very least, aware that this was of a menacing nature and I find him guilty of the offence."
Staggering!
Two points:
This has not made Britain a safer place (and seriously - any slight possibility that people will be more careful before they tweet is outweighed by the fact that you can be prosecuted for such tosh).
This cannot have been the sort of threat that Parliament had in mind when outlawing menacing messages over public communications networks. It's a clear case of creeping increase in scope!
Soon we'll all be terrorists. And I hope that saying that doesn't get twisted into an endorsement of terrorism! You get locked up for that.
IANAL but the offence he was charged with is an "either way" offence.
He (and the magistrate) could have elected to have the case tried in Crown Court (i.e. with a Jury), though the Crown Court is able to give stiffer punishment. It's quite possible he was advised against going to Crown Court in order to avoid stiffer penalties.
In case anyone is under the mis-apprehension you ALWAYS get a choice, you don't. In fact even with an "either way" offence, they don't necessarily have to give you the choice.
HTH
...who rides the Clapham omnibus, it is clear to me that the man who posted this message made a politically incorrect joke; and whilst it wasn't very funny, it was clearly not a threat from a terrorist.
I am annoyed that the legal system has pounced on this as a way to make a quick buck out of this non-story.
Real terrorists would have used an encrypted message not on a public forum and probably through a VPN or two, I doubt they would use twitter and post from an account tracable back to them how idiotic would you have to be.
What next, get taken to court for posting encrypted messages on twitter because it might be a bomb threat? They should have just put his name on the blacklist so he gets searched everytime he goes to the airport ^^.
so here goes
They nailed him to make an example out of him to deter other people from making jokes about blowing things up.
It's pretty obvious why they nailed him.
Yes it is a big brither thing and yes they are basically telling us all "dont even think about making a joke about blowing stuff up, it's hard enough trying to catch the real terrists let alone the hundreds of comdians"
So i see if from both views, convicting somebody like this is not the answer though.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
