In a rare outbreak of common sense, the chap who was delayed at Robin Hood Airport and tweeted
"=#8000FFCrap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your sh?t together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
... has [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344won his second appeal[/url, to the High Court, and is now officially innocent.

I know that bombs and security are no laughing matter, but I do not believe that there ever was a person in this country, even whoever complained, or anyone who prosecuted it, that did not instantly know 100% that this was meant as a joke, regardless of his or their taste in jokes.

What a waste of scarce public money.

Absolutely bonkers that it reached this stage.

As you said, common sense eventually prevailed.

At last. Was a ridiculous prosecution in the first place. Should never have got this far

It is such a shame this had to get to the Court of Appeal before there was an outbreak of common sense. I seem to recall reading that the guy was a trainee accountant at the time of his arrest. Obviously this has had a horrific impact on his life and career.

This should have been turned off by the police or CPS at a very early stage.

I really do hope the lawyer(s) who made the decision to prosecute get some Special High Intensity Training over this.

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.

Ooooo, you'll be upsetting Big G.

What should upset BG is the "government" being so in thrall and in hock to the multinationals that they are even prepared to pis$ valuable parliamentary time down the pot to pass what amounts to private criminal legislation for the commercial benefit of one organisation (LOCOG) which in turn is of course to preserve the commercial interests of the multinationlas.

Leaving aside the fact that these corporations are more than big enough to look after themselves in the civil courts, there is no argument you could put forward to explain satisfactorily why even vaguely alluding to an event in London could get your collar felt, even if you don't mention anything by name, is worthy of a criminal conviction and penalty all of its own.

Also having as a taxpayer and lottery player put a whole bunch of my own money into the Olympics which my country is hosting, if I was a baker I'd feel perfectly entitled to bake some Olympic rings to put in the window display. That I would get some officious bozo visiting me and telling me sternly to desist is what is shameful.

I'd better not make any jokes anywhere just in case I end up in court.

I'm going to blow up RLFANS #howdoiblowuptheinternet

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-ar[is[/ied police sergeant to knock on his door, give him a slap and tell him not to be a 2@

Job sorted

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

Not that marketing is something to trouble the RFL, but imagine if they tried to run an advert proclaiming "This =#FF8040summer, get down to =#FFBF40London and see the =#FF80002012 Challenge Cup Final, one of the most exciting =#FF8000Games of the year!! The Cup is made of =#FFBF00Silver! Thanks to our =#FFBF00sponsors Carnegie."

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.





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 [iI[/i would expect, it is what [ianyone with a brain[/i 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.

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.

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.

Quote ="kirkstaller"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: thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/ And there is previous, apparently. Such as: lockerz.com/s/229826962

Quote ="kirkstaller"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: thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/ And there is previous, apparently. Such as: lockerz.com/s/229826962

Quote ="Mintball"The following may have something to do with it: thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/ And there is previous, apparently. Such as: 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 of the highest order, and may have had a bit too much Sunny D when he was younger.

Quote ="Mintball"The following may have something to do with it: thedigitalreport.net/2012/07/uk- ... rileyy_69/ And there is previous, apparently. Such as: 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 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.

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.

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.

If you had to take a guess you'd say he's either been in council care most of his life and is now being written off by them, of he's from a disfunctional family who have kicked him out or he's taken the lead and left - hardly surprising that maliciousness and aggression comes to the fore.

Surprised that people haven't learnt from the Muamba tweet incident that you can't be a keyboard hard man, hiding behind assumed Internet anonymity.

Now that British plod is policing the internet, and hurting someone's feeling is viewed as a serious criminal offence, I have two questions:

1. Anyone know how other countries are treating similar comments that pop on up Facebook and Twitter?

2. If a Brit had made the online comments whilst abroad on holiday, could the British police still do something when he returned to the UK, or was no offence committed since he was out of the jurisdiction at the time?

I don't know the answers to the questions, but suggesting you might drown someone is a bit more than "hurting someone's feelings"

The fact he lives in fooking Weymouth should be sufficient mitigation