Mind your twitters!

[Lfbarfe]

However I do have a problem with him being arrested under the Terrorism Act and taken down the station (and thus fingerprinted & DNA'd) for seven hours; that seems a totally disproportionate and vindictive response to what was clearly a jokey comment.

Totally disproportionate, vindictive and well-publicised, so that anyone else who thinks it might be funny will have second thoughts. I'd be with biggy if I thought this was a civil liberties issue rather than the authorities humiliating a twat very publicly in the hope of making their lives a little bit easier in future, and thus allowing themselves to get on with real work. If data mining were happening seriously and systematically, half of this forum would be awaiting trial.

[mini goatbix]

.

[rudi]

If you can seriously argue that all of those people were legitimate targets of suspicion of terrorism, then essentially you are arguing that we're all terrorists.

Eh?

[biggytitbo]

It's a reasonable theory LB, but like the coppers it ignores the context of this sustained assault by the police on innocent people for trivial matters that has undoubtedly happened over the last decade. It's just a particularly stupid example of that trend.

[biggytitbo]

Eh?

If all of those tens of thousands of people were legitimately suspected of being terrorists then we are all terrorists. Not hard is it?

[Still Not George]

That wasn't what the thread was about though.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

If all of those tens of thousands of people were legitimately suspected of being terrorists then we are all terrorists. Not hard is it?

Not at the moment, but maybe if you talk dirty?

[rudi]

If all of those tens of thousands of people were legitimately suspected of being terrorists then we are all terrorists. Not hard is it?

Eh??

[Welshy]

Under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 124,687 people were stopped and searched in 2007/2008 and in the years since its introduction over 60000 people have been arrested under the act at railway stations alone, I really doubt each of those was a case of suspected terrorism. Of course the ECHR has declared that section a breach of human rights, but it looks like that's being ignored for now.

Where on earth did you get these absurd figures? between 2001 - 2009 (as of november 09) there have been a TOTAL of 1661 arrests under anti - terrorism legislation. Official figures show that the use of section 44 is actually being scaled back, the initial purpose of the legislation was to allow Officers to stop and search anyone in areas where terrorists could reasonably be expected to target. Initially this was deemed to be the whole of London for example but is now a lot more restrictive  -  railway stations, government buildings, airports etc. The legislation does not require reasonable grounds of suspicion either.

I think you can quite legitimately question the purpose or usefulness of the legislation itself but not, I believe, the Police's requirement to enforce it.

[biggytitbo]

Eh??

[rudi]

Yeah, well done there.

[biggytitbo]

Yeah, well done there.

Eh?

[purlieu]

Is this some kind of satire on how statistics based on the opinions of 10,000 people can be used to reflect society's views on the whole?  Otherwise, it's probably the strangest thing you've ever said.

[Shaun]

Where on earth did you get these absurd figures? between 2001 - 2009 (as of november 09) there have been a TOTAL of 1661 arrests under anti - terrorism legislation. Official figures show that the use of section 44 is actually being scaled back, the initial purpose of the legislation was to allow Officers to stop and search anyone in areas where terrorists could reasonably be expected to target. Initially this was deemed to be the whole of London for example but is now a lot more restrictive  -  railway stations, government buildings, airports etc. The legislation does not require reasonable grounds of suspicion either.

I think you can quite legitimately question the purpose or usefulness of the legislation itself but not, I believe, the Police's requirement to enforce it.

I didn't save the sources, I just found them searching for news stories, but the googling the first number comes up with quite a few sources such as here.

Home Office figures show 124,687 of these type of searches were carried out in England and Wales in 2007/08 - compared with 41,924 the previous year.

I can't actually find where I found the second figure since I didn't copy it precisely, so maybe I misread that.

[Welshy]

I can't actually find where I found the second figure since I didn't copy it precisely, so maybe I misread that.

Twas only the arrest figures I was refering to Shaun. I think someone, probably a terrorist, stuck that nonsense figure on Wikipedia, which isn't always noted for it's accuracy.

[Talulah, really!]

Smells of biggy-baiting again :-(

The elusive 7th type of ambiguity there? I love those.

[Ambient Sheep]

BUMP.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/twitter_bomb_threat_joke_guilty/

Although he has pleaded guilty, and although even the prosecution has said "He...never intended the message to be received by the airport or for them to take it seriously" the judge has warned him that he may impose a custodial sentence at his next hearing on the 12th March!!  WTF?!  Is anybody here going to defend that as well?

In other news, he's also been suspended from his job, although that's probably the least of his worries right now.

[Fry]

12th March!!

That's my brithday.

[Fry]

Haha!

His name is Paul! This makes it all much funnier.

Paul

Haha, what a silly name.

^{hehe Paul, what a silly name.}

[Lfbarfe]

Although he has pleaded guilty, and although even the prosecution has said "He...never intended the message to be received by the airport or for them to take it seriously" the judge has warned him that he may impose a custodial sentence at his next hearing on the 12th March!!  WTF?!  Is anybody here going to defend that as well?

Christ, no. What are they charging him under? This looks like a Malicious Communications Act 1988 offence to me, which carries a maximum penalty of a £2,500 fine. What hellish trumped-up shit are they getting him on to make it a custodial issue?

In other news, he's also been suspended from his job, although that's probably the least of his worries right now.

Poor bastard.

[Zero Gravitas]

Haha!

His name is Paul! This makes it all much funnier.

Paul

Haha, what a silly name.

^{hehe Paul, what a silly name.}

At least it's not a girl's name.

[Lfbarfe]

At least it's not a girl's chavvy slag's name.

Fixed.

[biggytitbo]

Hang the unfunny twitter cunt!

Not really, its just disgusting what's happened to him.

[rudi]

Fixed.

:-)

[Lfbarfe]

Cue Ziggy to mong me into that picture.

[lollipop]

The judge is a cunt and is wasting taxpayer's time and money.

[Lfbarfe]

The judge is a cunt and is wasting taxpayer's time and money.

Unfortunately, while the judge might well be a cunt, I've just checked and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 was amended by Section 43 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, and now carries a maximum penalty of 6 months in chokey or a level 5 fine (maximum £5,000). What good would be served by sending this rather foolish, but harmless man to prison? Jesus fucking wept.

[ziggy starbucks]

Cue Ziggy to mong me into that picture.

here you go

[rudi]

Bah! It looks rather fine. I've gone from gentle mockery to seething jealousy.

[Fry]

Still, Paul.

Such an asinine name.

If you look at nit long enough it doesn't even look like a thing.