Twitter plane bomber found guilty

[Tony]

The man who twittered a 'bomb threat' out of frustration at snow delayed flight was found guilty by a magistrate in Doncaster of posting an offensive tweet.

 

Here's what he tweeted:

 

“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your s*** together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

 

He lost his job, could have gone to jail and now has a criminal record. It seems out of all proportion to what he did since he obviously posed no threat - it took the police a week to turn up at his house to speak to him.

 

Is this heavy handed state authoritarianism what the 'war on terror' was supposed to achieve?

[alchresearch]

Not a war on terror but a war on an idiot.

 

He's still not learnt his lesson, this was his last tweet:

 

"I'd like to thank the CPS for their level-best efforts in ****ing up the life of an ordinary citizen. I love Britain."

 

Too many people post stuff on the internet and feel they don't need to be responsible for their actions. No doubt the CPS want to make an example of him.

[medusa]

When will he learn that he can think these things but saying them in public (and certainly in a way which can be proven, like on a website) is just silly?

[DaFoot]

...No doubt the CPS want to make an example of him.

For what? An off hand silly comment which I'm sure plenty of others had said to each other in the recent delays.

 

Totally out of proportion. CPS are supposed to be a service. ie they should serve us...prosecute if in our (the nation's) interest not just to prove they can.

[Tony]

I tend to agree with your analysis but don't you think that any punishment should be proportional to the crime? There was no threat, no fear, no cost, and ultimately no point in the prosecution and no public interest protected. Should all silly people now be dealt with by courts, fines and jail?

[GordonBennet]

When will he learn that he can think these things but saying them in public (and certainly in a way which can be proven, like on a website) is just silly?

 

I'm sure I've seen far worse on this forum before. We all get wound up sometimes by things other people say and post things that on reflection we shouldn't have.

 

As a point of interest though, I always thought that if you said something libellous or whatever on an internet forum that it was the site not the individual who got charged?

[HeadingNorth]

I tend to agree with your analysis but don't you think that any punishment should be proportional to the crime?

 

 

He was fined considerably less than the average week's wages. I'd say the punishment was proportional to the crime.

 

The court didn't take his job away from him. No point blaming the justice system for that.

[HeadingNorth]

As a point of interest though, I always thought that if you said something libellous or whatever on an internet forum that it was the site not the individual who got charged?

 

I believe they can charge either, or both, if you've posted something that breaches a law. In libel cases - which as you probably already know, are civil and not criminal - the offended party can sue either or both. I don't know which lawsuit he'd be more likely to win.

 

In practice the rule seems to be that a website, host, server or whatever is required to operate on the "notice and take down" principle - they don't get charged for someone posting "Heathrow airport should be bombed into oblivion" but if they don't remove it as soon as is practicable (say, someone reports it to the mods but they deem it acceptable) then they would be held guilty.

[Tony]

No point blaming the justice system for that.

 

But I don't believe that he should have been in front of the justice system in the first place. No threat, no public interest, no point.

[KamalJoe]

Part of a police state!