Slashdot Mirror
Police In Britain Arrest Man For Bomb-Threat Joke On Twitter
An anonymous reader writes "A British man was arrested under anti-terrorism legislation for making a bomb joke on Twitter. Paul Chambers, 26, was arrested under the provisions of the Terrorism Act (2006). His crime? Frustrated at grounded flights over inclement weather, he made a joke bomb threat on the social networking site Twitter."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/twitter-joke-led-to-terror-act-arrest-and-airport-life-ban-1870913.html
Guy Fawkes was a terrorist.
Guy Fawkes was a revolutionary.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Offense taken!
We're not the USofA so we don't have a D.A. or felonies, and he was arrested and questioned - he has not yet been trialled and indeed has not yet even been charged with anything.
He *may* be charged with "conspiring to create a bomb hoax" - that he did not intend to actually bomb the place is irrelevant.
Of course it is all a bit of an overreaction, but we might at least get the facts/terms right or it cheapens us all. It might also prevent him being a douche in future :-)
(Leftist party is kind of expected to make such draconian laws in order to "protect" public: it is the very essence of being nanny state.)
I think you're projecting the American situation on another country.
What it means to be 'liberal' or 'conservative' can be vastly different depending where you are. In mainland Europe 'Liberals' tend to favor more freedom (hence the name liberal) at the expense of having less order and safety, while conservatives tend to favor more order and security at the expense of more repression.
You might find that the conservative vs liberal divide is (as far as I'm aware) uniquely American.
Some anecdotal evidence:
In Turkey, conservatives struggle to protect the strict separation of religion and state against liberals who wish to relax it. Where I live, conservative Christian politicians find their natural allies in the Green party, both wanting to roll the country back to some mythical idyllic past when it looked the way either God or Mother Nature intended, homosexuals join extreme right wing parties (because they feel threatened by Muslim immigration), liberals aim to restrict government interference in people's lives while conservatives wish the government to protect us from every real and imaginary threat conceivable.
The IRA gave coded telephone warnings a few minutes in advance.
This was NOT to allow civilians time to escape, or reduce the number of civilian casualties.
It was to verify that the IRA were the ones responsible for the attack, because after an attack there was usually a RUSH of extremist groups stepping forward to claim responsibility. The IRA wanted to make sure they got appropriate "credit" for the attack.
Umm, actually, that's not what happened (at least, that's not what was reported). As this news article makes clear, 'On 13 January, after apparently receiving a tip-off from a member of the public, police arrived at Mr Chambers' office.' Although, that doesn't make it any better to know that people have now been so conditioned in the UK that they've become snoops.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Then they're morons. Guy Fawkes Night isn't a celebration of Guy Fawkes; there's a reason why the central element of the night is lighting a large bonfire and placing an effigy of Mr Fawkes onto it. At least, where it's observed correctly and not used simply as an excuse to let off fireworks, but as with most festivals the original meaning is lost pretty quickly.
At eWEEK Europe, we have spoken to his employers, and confirmed that he is suspended from work for the next couple of weeks. The damage to his work prospects may be the most serious aspect of the story. We await any comment from the company concerned. Peter Judge
The civil libertarian Tessa Mayes, an expert on privacy law and free speech issues, said: "Making jokes about terrorism is considered a thought crime, mistakenly seen as a real act of harm or intention to commit harm. "The police's actions seem laughable and suggest desperation in their efforts to combat terrorism, yet they have serious repercussions for all of us. In a democracy, our right to say what we please to each other should be non-negotiable, even on Twitter."
~ In Trust, We Trust ~
The IRA gave coded telephone warnings a few minutes in advance.
This was NOT to allow civilians time to escape, or reduce the number of civilian casualties.
No, since the IRA did bomb and kill civilians and were pretty unrepentant about it. Coded warnings can amplify the effect of an attack - or even make an actual attack unnecessary. Why bother with a real bomb when a simple telephone message can shut down 40 train stations and cause an estimated £34 million damage? For every real bomb you can call in many times that number of coded threats, causing huge economic losses.
That's probably because we think it would have been a good thing for someone to blow up the houses of parliament and take down a corrupt government. At least that's what I thought until I was about 20. It never occurred to me that the government wasn't corrupt and that Fawkes wasn't a 'freedom fighter'. I suppose that just goes to show the quality of our historical education at school and the faith in the current government (the one I've grown up with) from a average lowly commoner.
Whether Fawkes was a 'freedom fighter' or not depends on your point of view. Fawkes was a Catholic, and Catholics at this time were a persecuted and oppressed minority deprived of many rights others took for granted. Being a Catholic was in many cases enough to be guilty of treason and many were executed and many more were exiled and/or had their property taken away. While King James I was originally more moderate than previous monarchs, he became harsher in the years before the Gunpowder plot.
The gunpowder plot aimed to kill the king and the government (the people actually responsible for the oppressive legislation). You could thus argue that they weren't 'innocent civilians'. Furthermore, it is hard to envision any non-violent and democratic way which British Catholics could have used at the time.
So there may be nothing wrong with your historical education giving you the impression that Fawkes was a freedom fighter who aimed to take down a corrupt government.
But as often happens when using violence to get your way, the opposite happened. The violent reactions by the conspirators led to even harsher treatment of Catholics in Britain.
It seems to me that the whole ordeal was a sad mess with little to be proud of on either side.