
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
Well the church is only saying that if you have the attention span of a gnat-on-speed and can't be arsed to read passed the headlines.
The "slighlty" longer version for the ADD crowd is :
Condoms promote promiscuity, or at least don't discourage it.
Sexual promiscuity leads to the spread of STI's.
Now add onto that the cultural problems in Africa of getting men to use condoms in the first place and teaching abstence as a method of preventing the spread of STI's isn't such a crazy idea.
Of course if you want to stick to your McNuggets version of what's being said, then the next issue of the Daliy Star will be along shortly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/07/catholic-church-condoms-africa
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms, - on the contrary, it increases the problem."
Watch the video linked earlier (the Stephen Fry one). Nobody says abstinence is not a valid tool, neither too is being faithful - but to reject condoms as a valid 3rd option (and claim they increase the problem) is bloody absurd - but I expect nothing less from this (or any) religion, to be honest.
PS. Better to read the DAILY Star (which I don't) than The Tablet (which you probably do). There's more truth in the former - and that's saying something.
You can't stop people shagging!
They've always done it, they're always going to do it. You can give people a million reasons not to, they're still going to do it.
Preach abstinence all you want - be my guest, knock yourself out - but don't for a minute tell me that condoms exacerbate the spread of STIs. Next you'll be saying they have tiny holes which HIV passes through!
The head of an organisation founded on theft, murder and torture? You mean our prime minister? Don't forget things like slavery and exploitation of colonies. How do you think ANY modern state or democracy was formed? All goodness and light, throughout history, with no greedy powermongers backstabbing or exploiting others for their own benefit along the way?
"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?"
^ This
Magistrates are the Special branch of the Judiciary. Special as in School. Once it gets before some real judges, they'll throw it out and send the CPS away with a bee in their ear.
It's up to the prosecution to make their case that a "reasonable person" would find the message threatening *in context*. They weren't required to do that by the Magistrates - and in fact, couldn't, since nobody involved in the prosecution has ever suggested that they did consider it "threatening" - but the grown ups will certainly look into that curious lapse in the burden of proof.
This is just crazy. I sure if he was an illegal immigrant, muslin, Christian, serial killer or some other minority group he could sue under the human rights act. But being a local. Bad luck friend.
Murderers get away with less trouble than this. I blame the police trying to up their figures without penalising some minority.
Something has gone seriously wrong in this Country
"Overrun by histeria, hiprocrey, bulls*it and political correctness"
Well for a start, perhaps if people took the time to learn to spell properly, they would be able to communicate more effectively. "Hysteria" and "hypocracy", for example.
As for political correctness - isn't that the thing that makes people write "bulls*it" instead of "bullshit" in public?
> Airport TV programme - the guy from Chicago carrying the violin ?
Yes, I remember that and was going to mention it. Only difference was there the Heathrow police took a more reasonable line and after getting the person to admit it was a stupid thing to say issued him with a caution ... I think the airline (? Delta I think) also gave him a lifetime ban - but I'm not entirely sure if that qualifies as a punishment!
Not sure of the details in this case but I think when the case came to court the person here initially pled guilty but then decided to change that and argue that he'd not said anything that could be taken as a threat. Perhaps if he'd admitted crass stupidity at the start then he may have not gone further than the police station.
to set up an account on twitter for @BigBadWolf and post this:
Those 3 Little legal folks better find an ounce of common sense pretty sharpish, or I'll Huff, and I'll Puff, and I'll blow their courthouse [sky high/down].
(The porcine inference is intended, as it's my taxes that they are pigging out on.)
"Airport is closed. {cute irritated statement}" gets a look by the po-po these days.
Not to stretch that one too far, but to share the thought that it draws to mind: It would seem that liberty and fair sense could be viewed as if they were mere anachronisms, in some climates, these days Instated, we have any number of hair-splitting cultures of local political correctness - evidently, spanning across the pond.
To borrow from that that old V for Vandengraaff movie: "PC Prevails."
In more of reality, it may be far too uptight and unprincipled of a climate for genuine culture to take root in, where the climate is as so - but, by now, I have well since abandoned the primary thread of discussion.
In yokel drawl: "You just wait 'til we get the choppers on you, tell you what..." - while all the reasonable world goes on about its business, largely unawares to the amoebic spread of new trends in PC-ness and cliches...
Anon 'cos wouldn't it make sense if I was a conspiracy theorist, too? Would it, though?
In the UK we do NOT have the right to Free Speech, in fact, what we have is the right to say anything we want PROVIDING it isn't proscribed by law and boy is there a whole load of things we can't say, such as slander, defamation of character, hate speech, threats (counts as assault if you're believed) and so on.
Seriously, why do people feel the need to speak up for a right that we've practically never had because it's not the way our laws have worked.
He threatened to blow up an airport.
He may well have been joking, but he was stupid enough not to understand that nowadays it's not a good idea to make jokes like that, because nowadays a threat like that has to be taken seriously by security types (imagine the outcry if he had been ignored and actually did try something).
Would you want anyone that stupid working for you?
But yeah, he's probably a first class jerk as well.
There's no might about it. Only a dick would have posted that. Even if it was intended as a joke he should have had the common sense to realise it was a stupid thing to do. Would he have considered it a good idea to say it out loud at check in?
As for the idea that he'd been sacked from a second job because of the conviction, I'm not so sure that this is as black and white as he makes out. It's the "second" bit that makes me think there is more to it. More likely he applied for the job and omitted to mention the conviction. Maybe the offer of a job was pending a CRB or maybe he was asked to make a disclosure about criminal record and somebody found out about the conviction just because they recalled seeing his picture in the Free Press. Either way I think that he was a bit of a dick when he applied for his new job too.
Being British was at one time equated with having independent thought and a dedication to purpose likened to that of the bulldog - tenacious.
Plunkett, Blair and Brown turned Britain into a bunch of conformists, at least from a legal point of view, any deviation from their concepts resulting in an ASBO, or some equally ridiculous penalty whilst reducing rights that have been enjoyed for years.
Then you have this collection of pompous, legal neophytes called magistrates who think the sun shines out of their collective rear ends, usually blinkered and pro-police to the point of stupidity.
My experience of dealing with airport officialdom was that the British were fair, firm and polite with a sense of tolerance and humour. Now you would be hard-pressed to tell them apart from the brain-dead uniformed buffoons that greet me when I go the States.
I, and many others, now choose to bypass the UK, using European airports instead.
I imagine any educated employer would have sacked the loud-twittered idiot for americanised vulgarity of expression and displaying lack of judgement and self-control. Would he have expressed himself in the same way directly to airport staff? Particularly if the member of staff was over two metres tall and weighed 100 Kg?
Of course one may lament the lack of proportion in official response. But, as for freedom: we are all absolutely free to say or do whatever we want. Conversely, we must also be prepared to take the consequences, foreseen or not.
Now, when will literate English people learn how to use the computer in a literate, considerate manner and stop copying the vulgarity of the latest American sit-com or cartoon? What really worries me: some of these people are applying the same lack of judgement and abilty to express themselves to serious computer programming and design. I wonder if this explains the poor quality of so many web interfaces and computer packages.
"I imagine any educated employer would have sacked the loud-twittered idiot for americanised vulgarity of expression and displaying lack of judgement and self-control. Would he have expressed himself in the same way directly to airport staff? Particularly if the member of staff was over two metres tall and weighed 100 Kg?
Of course one may lament the lack of proportion in official response. But, as for freedom: we are all absolutely free to say or do whatever we want. Conversely, we must also be prepared to take the consequences, foreseen or not."
Anybody else imagining that little outpouring to have been spoken in the style of Noel Coward?
... stupidity is a way of life. What did he hope to achieve by his tweet. Bring down the fascist state? I don't think so.
It was the weather that was causing the problem, by all accounts, surely he should have said 'clouds, if don't get yourselves sort I'll blow you sky high.'
P.S. I thought the proper spelling was high-poe-crea-eight
And we had a way of dealing with People who made jokes about Explosives.
"Haha, I've got a Bomb in my bag!!" SOP was to call the Police who would have a serious stern word in old-Plod professional style.
We would offload the passenger, let them cool down, then rebook them on a later flight
FOC - free of charge, actually, but they'd learnt their lesson.
End of story.
But...
This was 25 years ago...pre-911 and pre-Twitter.
If the chap was in the airport, stood up and shouted, "sort this place out, or come friday, ill blow this place up!" then, he deserves everything he gets... thats just stupid! but...
He was at home, on bloody twitter!!! there is a bit of a difference! Context people! please!
grenade... as im on hold and if the buggers dont answer soon, Ill hunt them down, strap them to a rocket and fire them at the sun..
When you ban some moron from a large, popular website they usually threaten to sue you. When you point out that it's impossible to do then they immediately resort to threats. The novelty has worn off to the point that my response last time someone threatened to kill me was to suggest that the user probably wouldn't be able to afford an assassain out of his pocket money.
Now, funnily enough I don't have any issues with people being prosecuted for making threats at all, even ones they don't intend to carry through posted on the internet. It's not funny, and making threats has always been severely punished, the fact they are being published on the internet is immaterial.
'Blowing' has more than one meaning. Rather than using explosives, perhaps the accused could allege he was contemplating offering his er ... services ... as a bribe to get the airport re-opened.
It used to be a crime to blow things up. Then it became a crime to assemble the materials to blow things up. Then it became a crime to read up on how to get the materials blow things up. Now it's a crime to talk about blowing things up. Soon ...
I'll stop now before I get arrested.
Oh, and we seriously need a 'police state' icon.
What's all this talk of free speech. This is the United Kingdom. We don't have 'free speech'. And while we're about it, we don't have a recognisable constitution either (in the same way that the USA does).
People in this country keep going on about their 'rights'. Apart from those given to us by the EU we have none under British Law.
Is it relevant that the UK doesn't have a single set of documents that serve as a constitution? Parliment provides the constitution, it's modern and progressive (regardless of your feelings about individual laws), the US constitution is a good framework, but the time it was written in shows how dated it is (and how difficult to change), Bush 2.2 got in because voters constitutional rights were ignored, the patriot act (and other sedition acts) specifically prevent people saying things against the government (unlike the UK) which would be against the constitution, the right to bear arms is specifically so that "the people" could overthrow the government if they disagreed with them, although you're not allowed to buy a gun if you are anti government.
But I competely support your right to say whatever you like (even if it makes you look like an idiot).
Christ, somebody must do something, have we found a way to connect brains with the rest of the body, yet? Some people, especially those working at airport safety, really need that operation.
Come on science, we need you! In any case, once these cretins die we should keep their unused brains for when we can transplant brains. If stupidity hurt, the world would be a better place!
I was gonna put something similar into this comment box, but I do not want a brigade of French police storm my flat.
Cameron Diaz, because she can blow anybody sky-high.
I imagine any educated employer would have sacked the loud-twittered idiot for americanised vulgarity of expression and displaying lack of judgement and self-control. Would he have expressed himself in the same way directly to airport staff?
American spelling accepts only -ize endings in most cases, such as organize, realize, and recognize.[56] British usage accepts both -ize and -ise (organize/organise, realize/realise, recognize/recognise).[56] British English using -ize is known as Oxford spelling, and is used in publications of the Oxford University Press, most notably the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as other authoritative British sources. The OED lists the -ise form separately, as "a frequent spelling of -IZE..."[57] It firmly deprecates usage of "-ise" for words of Greek origin, stating, "[T]he suffix..., whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -ιζειν, Latin -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic." It maintains "... some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or English from Latin elements, retaining -ize for those of Greek composition."[58] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[59]
Other references, including Fowler's Modern English Usage, now give prominence to the -ise suffix over -ize.[60] The Cambridge University Press has long favored -ise.[60] Perhaps as a reaction to the ascendancy of American spelling, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK mass media and newspapers, to the extent that it is often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism.[56] The ratio between -ise and -ize stands at 3:2 in the British National Corpus.[61] The -ise form is standard in leading publications such as The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Economist. The Oxford spelling (which can be indicated by the registered IANA language tag en-GB-oed), and thus -ize, is used in many British-based academic publications, such as Nature, the Biochemical Journal and The Times Literary Supplement. In Australia and New Zealand -ise spellings strongly prevail; the Australian Macquarie Dictionary, among other sources, gives the -ise spelling first. The -ise form is preferred in Australian English at a ratio of about 3:1 according to the Macquarie Dictionary. Conversely, Canadian usage is essentially like American.[62] Worldwide, -ize endings prevail in scientific writing and are commonly used by many international organizations, such as the ISO and the WHO. The European Union uses ise in its English language publications, though the EU may, even on a single page, show "organized" but "publicise" as well. "Synthesize" is used in international chemical journals.
Courtesy wikipedia, that clarifies the situation I believe. Americanized
This post has been deleted by its author
Re the Twitter bomb threat...
This man is a bloody idiot ! His actions betray his mental instability. What should we do with such a person? ( Always supposing that this country knew how to care for its mentally ill people, which it doesn't) He should be confined in Broadmoor, but will probably end up as yet another malcontent, drawing the dole and replying to Nigerian scam messages.
Maybe he didn't declare his conviction on his job application, and his employer found out about it from one of the news reports ?
There's no way to tell if the second sacking is related to the original incident - for all we know, he could have been sacked for something totally unrelated, and Chambers is milking this for publicity.
There are two sides to every story, but one side seems to have protected its Tweets.
He said "I thought they knew", you would have thought that either the conviction was trivial and unimportant and therefore why is he still bleating on about it, or that it was an important life-changer and that he'd make damn sure they knew, the third option is that he is an idiot and didn't tell them about a highly publicised conviction.
I just wonder if Paul Chambers had not identified himself, so clearly through his twitter account and the tweet had appeared via an anonymous untrackable account. Would Robin Hood still be in a state of high alert looking out for TheRealBinLadin, TerryTaliban, SemtexSamir, etc.
The whole affair is quite ridiculous, apart from the criminal record and ruined employment prospects.
This is an instance the anti-Trident mob would love to hush up. . . because it demonstrates, beyond doubt, why this country needs to spend £billions on Trident.
Only nuclear missiles from a hidden submarine are going to be enough to deter failed accountants with Belfast girlfriends from executing their terrorist plans on UK soil.
We have the technology to track down these people. And in Trident, we have the means to wipe 'em out -- and they know it!
Yes, there may be some collateral damage.
But that surely is a small price to pay for defending beacons of Liberty such as Robin Hood Airport, Doncaster.
From which, or so I learn, EasyJet has just absented itself after arriving there amidst much hulabaloo in April and will now not fly anyone to anywhere if it's from Doncaster.
Had there not been all this uncertainty over renewal of Trident, I am sure Easyjet would still be there.
Yet again, an accountant is at the bottom of all this.
Robin Hood fought long and hard tol build his airport there. As a nation, we should hang our heads in shame.