Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:15 am  

Conroy wrote:

Whilst it may have been pretty obvious that he was joking, there are certain things in this day and age that you don't joke about and security at airports, train stations and the like is one of them.

If he'd said he had a gun/bomb in his bag then would you have expected the police/airport security to laugh it off or to arrest him with force and search him ASAP?

All that was needed was a big hair-arsed police sergeant to knock on his door, give him a slap and tell him not to be a 2@

Job sorted

[tb]

Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:39 am  

Conroy wrote:

If he'd said he had a gun/bomb in his bag then would you have expected the police/airport security to laugh it off or to arrest him with force and search him ASAP?

Are you actually familiar with the case in question? Because your comparison suggests not ...

Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:18 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The worrying thing is this seems to me to be part of a long-running trend. It's a relief that Judge LJ and the others agree, but it's not just the police, or the proscutors. The chap was convicted by the magistrates; then, he appealed to a Crown Court judge, and that judge also dismissed his appeal, saying the tweet was clearly menacing. My feeling is that, far from a one-off, we are all at increasing risk of similar absurdity and overreaction.

Mr. Chambers may now have been cleared, but he's had the case going on for 2 1/2 years, and says it has made him "unemployable".

We have endless inquiries, but I would support one into this case, if only to sack a few of the buffoons who allowed such a ridiculous prosecution to go ahead.

However, in the country where some council or other has just trumpeted with pride the first conviction for selling items infringing the Olympic brand (he'd bought a shop and the items were part of the stock) on the grounds he "hadn't done enough" to check whether the items were authorised or licenced, you would be forgiven for being pessimistic.

It gets worse. Under the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act advertisers can't use any two of the following terms together: 'Games', 'Two thousand and twelve', '2012' and 'Twenty twelve'. Or any one of those terms together with any of: 'Gold', 'Silver', 'Bronze', 'London', 'Medals', 'Sponsors', 'Summer'. Infringe, and you could get a £20,000 fine.

So you fall foul if your ad contains, for example, "Summer 2012". Or, of the thousands of 2012 events being held in London, while they will all truthfully be "XXX, London 2012" they can say so only at their peril.

Not that marketing is something to trouble the RFL, but imagine if they tried to run an advert proclaiming "This summer, get down to London and see the 2012 Challenge Cup Final, one of the most exciting Games of the year!! The Cup is made of Silver! Thanks to our sponsors Carnegie."

Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:24 pm  

Conroy wrote:

Whilst it may have been pretty obvious that he was joking, there are certain things in this day and age that you don't joke about and security at airports, train stations and the like is one of them.

Utter nonsense. You wouldn't joke TO airport staff. And that's only because you know (a) they wouldn't find it funny so there's no point and (b) you also know for a fact that you will get your collar felt.

Conroy wrote:

If he'd said he had a gun/bomb in his bag then would you have expected the police/airport security to laugh it off or to arrest him with force and search him ASAP?

Can you explain in what way that rather asinine rhetorical question is relevant to me, or to anything I wrote?

But leaving aside the fact you are way off beam, the fact is that if a person who is clearly joking makes wisecracks about having a gun/bomb in their bag then they are stupid as if they had a brain they would know that this will not only automatically give them plenty of grief, but probably forfeit their ticket too. It is not a question of what I would expect, it is what anyone with a brain would expect. This would NOT eb because the security staff thought there really was a gun or a bomb, but because they have procedures to go through, and if you are stupid enough to fall ful then you face the consequences.

I would suggest that if the security staff thought that the claim was genuine, you might find that their reaction was a tad different to what it would be for a joking moron.

Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:30 am  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ju ... -tom-daley Not had a look at the user's previous Tweets (some have suggested he has made death threats in the past) but if he has been arrested for this message to Tom Daley then we really are in loony town.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ju ... -tom-daley Not had a look at the user's previous Tweets (some have suggested he has made death threats in the past) but if he has been arrested for this message to Tom Daley then we really are in loony town.

Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:39 am  

kirkstaller wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/31/teenager-arrested-tweets-tom-daley Not had a look at the user's previous Tweets (some have suggested he has made death threats in the past) but if he has been arrested for this message to Tom Daley then we really are in loony town. The following may have something to do with it: http://thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/ And there is previous, apparently. Such as: http://lockerz.com/s/229826962

kirkstaller wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/31/teenager-arrested-tweets-tom-daley Not had a look at the user's previous Tweets (some have suggested he has made death threats in the past) but if he has been arrested for this message to Tom Daley then we really are in loony town. The following may have something to do with it: http://thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/ And there is previous, apparently. Such as: http://lockerz.com/s/229826962

Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:30 pm  

Mintball wrote: The following may have something to do with it: http://thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/ And there is previous, apparently. Such as: http://lockerz.com/s/229826962 I saw some of them last night when it was mentioned. Whether its an offence is for others to decide but he's clearly a dude of the highest order, and may have had a bit too much Sunny D when he was younger.

Mintball wrote: The following may have something to do with it: http://thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/ And there is previous, apparently. Such as: http://lockerz.com/s/229826962 I saw some of them last night when it was mentioned. Whether its an offence is for others to decide but he's clearly a dude of the highest order, and may have had a bit too much Sunny D when he was younger.

Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:45 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I saw some of them last night when it was mentioned. Whether its an offence is for others to decide but he's clearly a dude of the highest order, and may have had a bit too much Sunny D when he was younger.

Indeed – although it is worth pointing out that his initial tweets were crass and insensitive, but not aggressive or obscene. That only happened when some of those who weighed in last night were pretty aggressive to him. So if he is charged over his internet aggression etc, presumably they should be too?

Apparently, he lives on his own in a hostel – he's 17 – so perhaps, with luck, this will mean he gets the sort of help that it seems he may need.

Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:35 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Indeed – although it is worth pointing out that his initial tweets were crass and insensitive, but not aggressive or obscene. That only happened when some of those who weighed in last night were pretty aggressive to him. So if he is charged over his internet aggression etc, presumably they should be too?

Apparently, he lives on his own in a hostel – he's 17 – so perhaps, with luck, this will mean he gets the sort of help that it seems he may need.

The first post about his father was indeed crass but not sure whether illegal.

After that however he started making death threats. "I'm guna drown him in the pool etc'. Thats what probably got him arrested.

Re: "Tweeting Terrorist" wins appeal against conviction : Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:06 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/31/teenager-arrested-tweets-tom-daley

Not had a look at the user's previous Tweets (some have suggested he has made death threats in the past) but if he has been arrested for this message to Tom Daley then we really are in loony town.

He's been arrested for "on suspicion of malicious communications." Having read the published ones, I can see why. Stand outside anywhere and shout the same sort of stuff, you'll get arrested just the same, and rightly so.