Twitter joke bomber loses appeal

Seems over the top..

Given a shoplifter would get a £50 for nicking a few grands worth of stuff the fine seems a bit steep.

I'm surprised for a first offence it wasn't a caution.

By cyberindie on 11 Nov 2010

I think I've found 2 more areas of government that could cope with budget cuts.

By davidsoap on 12 Nov 2010

It's quite clear, really

"Anyone living in this country in the present climate of terrorist threats, especially at airports, could not be unaware of the possible consequences [of their actions],"

Which translates as:

"The poor sod's done nothing wrong really, but he was easy enough to give him a good bashing, so you know, if you're a real terrorist - beware. And BTW, if you ARE a real terrorist, please let us know about your plans via Twitter, preferably two weeks ahead."

By Josefov on 12 Nov 2010

I'm sorry but making a bomb threat isn't doing nothing wrong.

The authorities don't know if someone is joking when that sort of comment is posted, so they have to spend time investigating which may distract from genuine bombers.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence should have realised that this wasn't just going to be taken as a joke.

He deserved to be fined and he deserves to have to pay the additional costs due to his failed appeal. It was his choice to joke about bombing an airport and it was his choice to appeal.

By cc1970 on 12 Nov 2010

"Joke" should be in quote marks!

This is what is in contention, and the law has now ruled that it was not a joke and I agree.
I accept that the thoughtless idiot was not serious in his intent, but I would describe it as a temper tantrum not a joke. I normally have boundless respect for Steven Fry, but he is on the wrong side of this one.
Remember that the security services are now being castigated with 20-20 hindsight for not following up earlier information about the 7/11 tube bombers. Again with hindsight we can see it is unlikely that Chambers is an Islamist terrorist, but that is only clear after the matter has been investigated. His thoughtless irresponsibility has resulted in wasted security services time that could otherwise conceivably have saved lives. It could easily have resulted in disruption to other travellers at the airport.
The man has got off lightly in my view with a fine not much more than you might get for illegal parking. If he had just apologised and paid the fine (or let Fry pay it for him) he would not have wasted further time and run up legal costs.

By JohnAHind on 12 Nov 2010

cc1970 - so...

after reading the tweet, you immediately thought, "oh my", I must call the police, this is evidence of possible terrorist activity?

By khellan on 12 Nov 2010

@khellan

Glad you weren't in charge when the IRA were telephoning in their bomb alerts Khellan. I'm sure a 'comedy' Irish accent would have had you 'ROFL'.

By ddoyley on 12 Nov 2010

@ddoyley

IRA bomb threats were a completely different matter to what this chap wrote on Twitter.
He did not 'phone anyone, neither did he state there was any actual bomb.

If the police really took this seriously, why did they take so long to pick him up?

No, a court appearance & fine is just silly - a police caution would have been more than enough.
Or better still, the airport security taking him into a side room and going through his luggage VERY carefully would get the message across.

Proportionality is what is lacking these days - in the 70s, when the IRA were at their hight, there wasn't anything like this level of hysteria from the government or authorities and there were a lot more bombings & shootings back then.

By greemble on 12 Nov 2010

@Greemble

I actually agree that his sentence was disproportionate. I disagree that it should all have been ignored. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but at the time he made the threat it was right to take it seriously. I didn't say he phoned anyone by the way, I was comparing and contrasting then with now. And who knows, if the IRA were giving bomb warnings now they'd probably do it using more modern techniques too, perhaps even using Twitter.

His threat was stupid but it couldn't be ignored. The sentence was equally stupid but his own fault -as the judge said he knew the risk of making a bomb threat. Likewise with the appeal and it's right that if he takes it to appeal and loses it's on him to pay the cost of doing so.

I'd have no problem with his sentence or conviction being struck down in a higher court as the trauma of events so far is punishment in itself and it's a message to others. After all, would you make a threat like that now?

By ddoyley on 12 Nov 2010

sentence was disproportionate

Very much the point being made by a number of people - and no, I wouldn't make such a threat, but I'd not have done so before this anyway.
As JohnAHind says, it wasn't so much a joke as more of a temper tantrum because the airport was snowed up. Very much a stupid thing to do and definitely his own fault.
I can imagine he might be the type of person, when asked what's in his luggage to say "It's a bomb" & think he's being funny. In which case the strip search that follows would serve him right - and be sufficient to make him think next time.

By greemble on 12 Nov 2010

Disproportionate?

The £385 fine can hardly be called excessive - this is a couple of parking fines! The rest of the costs are because he decided to contest this. In fact if he had simply apologised for his actions I'm sure the fine would have been even less and he might not even have been prosecuted.

By JohnAHind on 12 Nov 2010