FOI - How much taxpayer money has the CPS spent in prosecuting Paul Chambers?

This post is an archive. The live version can be found on a new blog called Arsehole Justice (no offence).

Like many, I'm personally disgusted with the sheer waste of time, money and resources being spent by a public body (the Crown Prosecution Service) on the prosecution of a blameless individual. How much money is it? I'd like to know. Therefore, I have made a request under the Freedom of Information Act to the South Yorkshire office of the CPS for disclosure of all the information related to the costs of the prosecution. I've directed my request for the attention of Roger Tricklebank, a Senior Crown Prosecutor with whom I've had communications in the past, and copied Naheed Hussain, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for that region. I believe that I worded my request clearly and properly, and therefore we should have an answer within 20 working days unless the CPS require more time. Though it's hard to imagine how they would require more time.

Guest Post - Mark Phillips explains how Paul's #TwitterJokeTrial tweet was very clearly a joke.

This post is an archive. The live version can be found on a new blog called Arsehole Justice (no offence).

I had an email today from a very bright guy I've previously had some dealings with about the Paul Chambers case. Mark Phillips is a linguistics expert who became intrigued by the implications of this case and made numerous comments under articles in The Guardian's online Comment-Is-Free section back in May using the screen name 'justasillyjoke'. It is Mark who deserves the credit for formulating the line of thinking that suggests Paul was frustrated by a situation beyond his control and made an exaggerated remark assuming powers that he does not have in order to compensate for his feelings of lack of control. A very astute observation, I'm sure you'll agree. Mark was trying to post a comment to my previous entry but ran into some problems. With his permission, I am publishing what Mark had wanted to say:

This tweet was a joke. Not only was it a joke, it was very clearly a joke. Is a joke ‘menacing?’ Maybe, taken out of context. The point is, the CPS is trying to convey Paul as being knowingly ‘threatening, menacing’ etc. But, Paul is a joker, and he’s not pretending or even trying to be anything else.

Here is a linguistic breakdown of the joke. It is in ‘cartoon’ style. It builds on an exaggerated bluff, with the basic force of the joke being a stooge, the device being a bluff, and the special force of the joke being an ‘irony’. I’ll explain everything below. Enough to say, the bigger the bluff, the bigger the irony, and the bigger the joke! That is the linguistic recipe.

There are four very visible cartoon elements in the joke:

First, 'Crap!' This is derived historically from the interjection 'Holy Crap!', meaning unbelievable. As an interjection, it has been used extensively as an ‘entry’ into jokes. Think of ‘Wow!’, or ‘D’ya know what…?’, ‘You’ll never believe this…’, or more recently ‘I don’t believe it…’ (One Foot in the Grave). But it is perhaps best remembered in its cartoon form in Robin’s ‘Holy smoke!’ catchphrase from Batman and Robin. This 'unbelievable' meaning sets up the whole joke. After all, it’s not a joke if you believe it! The interjection is therefore the first ‘marker’ that it is a joke.

Second, the jokes main ‘device’ is the weapon bluff, the ‘banana passed off as a gun’. In Paul’s case, it was some imaginary TNT, one might assume. This is hugely important, because it sets up the ‘stooge’ of the joke. The stooge has been somehow duped into believing the banana can pass for a real weapon (maybe they believe they can hypnotise people or some such dupe). Their ‘stupidity’ is therefore the essence of the joke; they cannot see that they appear ridiculous waving around a banana.

Third, the bank robber takes his bluff weapon (the banana) and threatens to 'blow everyone's brains out' unless he 'gets the dough'. The exaggerated toughness (‘get your shit together’) gives the joke extra force, because it sets the stooge up further as a ‘fake’, as a weak character.

Fourth, 'Sky high' is what we might call ‘the hyperbolic flourish’; it serves two functions, it ends the joke with the required flourish, i.e., a punch line, and it reinforces the ‘cartoonish’ nature of the joke, just in case you missed it (pay attention CPS!).

The irony behind the joke is simply that although Paul sets himself up as the stooge, he knows that everyone knows that he knows the ‘banana is not a gun’. He happily sacrifices any appearance of intelligence (tweeting a bomb threat!), in order to set himself up as the stooge for his own joke.

Of course, language doesn’t happen in a vacuum. All communication is ‘primed’, in the way that mention of the word ‘dog’ will invoke ‘cat’. It’s therefore correct to mention that ‘the times in which we live’ create some of the context here: travelling by plan[sic] brings up thoughts of terrorism, as does mention of Northern Ireland. No doubt, if Paul had been writing to a Thai girlfriend, he might have plumbed for a good joke about riding a Tsunami wave, if he was brave. You see, good comedy does require bravery, because it skirts the borders of acceptability and social embarrassment. More than that, it reveals our tensions about things, and by so doing, helps to alleviate them somewhat. Hence, all the jokes about marriage, about our boss, about travelling, about sex, and about terrorists etc.

In fact, if we didn’t live in a world where we are more afraid of terrorists than ever, there probably wouldn’t have been much material there for Paul to joke about.

How the CPS managed to score an 'own goal' in the Paul Chambers appeal

This post is an archive. The live version can be found on a new blog called Arsehole Justice (no offence).

UPDATE: Please read this followup guest post where the semantics of Paul's tweet are deconstructed by a lingustics expert. Also it is incumbent upon me to reveal that two inaccuracies have been pointed out. @crazycolours has informed me that the related tweets mentioned below were not direct messages but replies in the public timeline. This was something that the prosecution was confused about. No surprise there. This information does not alter my argument. I've also been informed that the prison inmate example offered by Caroline Wiggin was in response to a question from the judge and was not pre-prepared. Original entry below:

Right. If you look at the archives of this blog you will see that I don't write very often. There are large gaps between periods of modest activity. In all honesty, I find it a bit of a chore. Writing is not something that I've ever been accustomed to and life puts up its typical array of barriers. The result is that I tend only to write when something really pushes my buttons. The case of Robin Hood Airport v Paul J Chambers of Balby, Doncaster has never failed to push my buttons.

I won't rehash my history of involvement with this case, as earlier entries set that out fairly comprehensively. You might wish to read my first three entries from the month of May for a start. I'm writing this new post because Paul's appeal was heard and then adjourned yesterday in Doncaster Crown Court and because the prosecution has, in my opinion, not only failed to strenghten its case since May but has offered evidence that actually weakens it to a never before seen level of farce. This is impressive. I would not have believed it possible. The trophy for "Most Ridiculously Argued Prosecution in a Crown Court" goes to Ms Caroline Wiggin of the South Yorkshire Crown Prosecution Service for this astonishing argument (from an article published in The Guardian today):

Caroline Wiggin, for the prosecution, said Chambers had earlier sent direct messages to the woman in Northern Ireland as it appeared possible that the airport might close. In one he wrote: “I was thinking if it does I have decided to resort to terrorism.” She argued that the context provided by such messages strengthened the case that Chambers intended to cause menace. “If a man in prison were to send a message to his wife that he was going to come and beat her up, the court might consider that were menacing, albeit the man himself may have difficulty in putting it into effect,” she said.

The context strengthens the case. What an interesting supposition! It's honestly hard for me to read that and keep a straight face. Is she really that deluded? What context is she imagining here? It might be the context that the CPS conjured out of thin air and District Judge Jonathan Bennett failed to see through when he offered his ridiculous judgement back in May. The context of "the times in which we live" and its association with the perpetual threat of airport terrorism. It is certainly not the context in which Paul's tweet or any of the related direct (private) messages were delivered. Before I talk about the weaknesses of the above argument, let's look at the REAL context, shall we? It deserves its own heading.

The Real Context

A young man in England has booked a flight in January to Northern Ireland to spend time with a young woman that he has previously met once or twice (not on Twitter by the way. They were personally introduced in London by Paul's best mate). The man likes this woman very much and thinks it might actually be love. The feelings are apparently mutual. This is a very good thing. Unfortunately there has been some snow fall that has resulted in the temporary closure of the local airport from which the flight is due to depart. When I think about what scant amount of snow fall can bring an entire British city to its knees, I feel the urge to punch somebody. It therefore does not surprise me that the man could be moved in a fit of pique to write the now legendary Twitter update "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

The context is that here is a man who feels frustrated with the fragility of his plans and has been rendered powerless. He therefore creates a fantasy in which he has powers not actually available to him in order to compensate for this lack of control. The powers are not available to the man because the man is not in any way capable of blowing up an airport. He has neither the means nor the meanness of character required. How does one actually blow an airport "sky high?" To begin with, how high is the sky? 37,000 feet perhaps? What sort of explosives would be required to achieve this incredible feat? Already, the notion of any intention to cause menace is taking on the stale aroma of farce. The continuation of the context is that the frustrated man, who has a particular sense of humour, decides to vent his frustration with the tweet that we are now all familiar with. The tweet is a form of publishing not unlike this web log, or blog. The act of using a service such as Twitter is known as 'microblogging.'

The audience is often quite limited, unless the author is some famous and prolific Twitterer such as Stephen Fry. At the time, Paul (I've grown tired of referring to him as "the man") had a bit less than 700 followers of his timeline. Most if not all of these were people who understood his brand of humour and would have gotten the true meaning of the tweet. It was not a literal expression of any intention whatsoever. I knew that the moment I first read it. Anyone who cannot see this is not viewing the message in its true context. One person in particular who did not grasp the context is Sean Duffield, the Robin Hood Airport duty manager who, for reasons best known to himself, was at home while not on duty and using Twitter's search facility to look for occurrences of the phrase "Robin Hood Airport." It was purely by coincidence that days after it was sent he came across Paul's tweet. One thing led to another and now here we are.

The Bullshit CPS Imaginary Context

The CPS like to talk about the "times in which we live," and judge Jonathan Bennett has lapped this up. But the times in which we live can have no bearing on this or any other case in terms of whether the CPS decide that public interest is served by a prosecution. Are not all recent cases considered by the CPS in the context of the times in which we live? Assuming this context when making decisions is very dangerous. Anything becomes possible. The one hypothetical act of terrorism which might not have been prevented should this tweet be ignored is enough to demand a criminal prosecution. This is, quite frankly, bullshit and so is the unfortunate argument offered by Crown Prosecutor Wiggin. If anything, the established fact that Paul and his girlfriend were having a private conversation prior to his tweet where hypothetical acts of terrorism were discussed strengthens the defence. This shows that the tweet continues a previous train of thought. Indeed, if you read this Jack-of-Kent guest blog post by the lovely @crazycolours you can see mentions of this. Please do read this poignant article. Poor Sarah has related the human aspect of this story better than anyone else can. In it we see that when Paul was failing to return her messages while he was being questioned at a police station, she left him an answerphone message jokingly threatening to "hijack a plane." They had after all been joking about terrorism earlier in the week. She is after all a Nothern Irish woman who grew up in a place where domestic terrorism has long been a sad fact of life. He was after all flying to Northern Ireland to see her. It really is that simple. Thus completes the picture of the real context.

The comparison of Paul's tweet to that of a prison inmate sending a communication threatening to beat his wife would be hilarious if it weren't so ridiculous. On the surface, such a communication to the prisoner's wife would indeed be menacing not only to the wife but also to anyone else, despite that the inmate did not have the power to carry it out. However, it might not be a literal threat. It might on the other hand be some sort of inside joke. The context needs to be examined. Paul's communication to Sarah was not menacing because she knew he was not serious. It's nobody else's business to make that determination because the message was private. The most basic understanding of messaging context still eludes the hapless CPS.

What Now?

Now the defence team have submitted an application for the case to be struck out on the basis that the prosecution has failed to make a case. This submission is being considered and the trial is expected to reconvene some time in November. Other bits of evidence have also come to light which tend to work in favour of the defence. I see no need to involve those in this discussion. In my view the one mistake I've outlined here ought to be enough to dismantle the prosecution. There has been no other new evidence to add strength to the Crown's case. If the CPS truly believe that the new evidence they've presented is helpful to them, then they are simply deluded. I'll go one further and call them incompetent.

My 2 pence about the ethics of Raoul Moat reporting and lionizing

Many other bloggers have written great pieces about this. I wanted to add my own thoughts to the ever growing pile. David Cameron received a suggestion from conservative MP Chris Heaton-Harris that he contact the social networking site Facebook to ask to have a Raoul Moat fan page taken down. The suggestion came during PM's question time this past week. The Prime Minister apeared to think that this might be a good idea, suggesting that his right honourable friend was making "a very good point." Cameron went on to say "As far as I can see, it is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer - full stop, end of story - and I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims, and for the havoc he wreaked in that community; there should be no sympathy for him." David Cameron later ordered Downing Street officials to lodge a formal complaint with the site. The page has since been made private by its creator.

I agree with Cameron that sympathy should be shown for the killer's victims in preference to the killer himself. This begs the question, who are the killer's victims? Do you know? I didn't before today when I searched "Raoul Moat victims". Why is that? I believe the answer lies in the slant that the mainstream media have given to this story. The 24 hour news networks and tabloids in particular have been guilty of portraying Moat as some sort of anti-hero and have devoted far too much screen time and print space to the killer and the hunt to find him. Martin Robbins and Johann Hari have both written excellent pieces about the role of the media in murder stories such as this one. See http://www.mjrobbins.net/?p=10439 and http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-did-the-media-help-to-pull-the-trigger-2020927.html respectively.

With such obsessive reporting of the killer's history and psychological profile, is there any wonder that the victims are all but forgotten? In my opinion, David Cameron should direct his anger and comtempt at the mainstream media for its irresponsible overexposure of a psychotic killer, rather than the backlash it has created. To condemn members of the public (who are after all voters) for sharing their thoughts, no matter how unpalatable, and to seek to take down the public forum that gives them their voice, is to overlook the significance of such public opinion. It serves to warn us that something has gone horribly wrong. In other words, it is a sympton rather than a cause for concern. That some 30,000 people would choose to idolize a killer of recent history ought to fill us with foreboding. But rather than wallpaper over the issue, it is the duty of a healthy democracy to ask the simple but difficult question "why?" This is a question that the Prime Minster has dismissed out of hand. Taking down that Facebook group would mean avoiding the question and labelling the 30,000 as morbid fantasists who exist outside the boundaries of normal society. But in searching for the answer to that question we might find that these folks are not so out of the ordinary. After all, they mostly have five senses and two of these have been presented with very disturbing stimuli from many news outlets. And the victims are all but forgotten.

I agree with Robbins and Hari that the media ought to look inward and ask themselves some serious questions about the direct effect they have had on this story and many others. Is it ethical and in the public interest to present such a narrow view of the case but fill that view with such mind achingly mundane minutiae? I don't think so. The media played a role in and has a lot to answer for the creation of the Facebook fan page. I do not doubt this. But the fan page is useful to our democracy. Parliament should note that there is much in the way of anti-police sentiment expressed in this forum. The extreme views do not negate the fact that there are many good reasons for the public to be upset with the country's police force and its tendency to ride roughshod over our civil liberties. David Cameron seems to have missed a golden opportunity here to tie this public opinion into a dialogue about the sort of policing the citizenry would like to have. Don't shoot the messengers, Dave. These are real people with valid opinions and actual votes. It is of course wrong to advocate violence against police or indeed anyone, but the feelings stem from actual problems that need to be addressed. And if you want to understand why anyone might feel like putting Raoul Moat on a pedestal instead of feeling sorry for his victims, then try Googling the killer's name and seeing what small portion of the results is in any way concerned with the victims.

By the way, here are the victims. Chris Brown was a 29 year old karate instructor who had been dating Samantha Stobbart the 22 year old ex-girlfriend of the gunman. The former was killed and the latter badly injured on the 3rd of July. Police Constable David Rathbone, 42, was also seriously injured when he was blasted in the face by Moat in the ensuing hunt. He will likely lose his sight. Search for Rathbone's name and you'll see that the first page of results has nothing to do with the Raoul Moat story if even the man himself. The two surviving victims are now evidently represented by PR guru Max Clifford, so it's likely we'll be hearing more about them in the days to come. I feel very sorry for the victims, but I can't help feeling at least a shred of sympathy for the killer as well. He was clearly a very disturbed and desperately unhappy man. The media ought not to have turned him into a legend. That sends all sorts of bad signals. I think Sky News and their contemporaries need to have a good hard think about what they do and why. Sadly, I don't think anything will change until it's more than ratings making the decisions.

Karaoke Circus and the Twitter-stalker phenomenon

Last night I went out to London and caught Ward and White's Karaoke Circus. It was the second time I've been and was once again a very fun night. The format of Karaoke Circus is such that local luminaries of the comedy scene are invited to perform a karaoke tune of their choosing in front of a very good live backing band. Audience members are also invited upon entry to put their names down on one from a list of songs for the chance to perform it in front of the band. It is a judged competition with the winning audience member awarded a prize. Several of my twitter pals regularly attend this event and it's a good tweet up. Last night I had the pleasure of a nice chat with comedy actor Tony Gardner (@tonygardner) and even a hug from the lovely Emma Kennedy (@EmmaK67). These are both people in the entertainment industry whom I follow on twitter and have had some conversations with. They do not follow my timeline, but they are nice and approachable people. It is very tempting when we have this type of contact with people and then meet them in person to imagine that we are friends. I am using the royal "we" here. We are not friends. What we are in fact is stalkers. It's the phenomenon of twitter that does this to us. This is not meant in a disparaging sense, though the meaning I have in mind has not yet made it into the Oxford English Dictionary. We follow the timelines of some of our favourite people who have no idea who we are. We do this because we are fascinated by their lives and enjoy glimpsing the more spontaneous elements of their personalities. Sometimes we reply and if we're lucky they chat back. We often know where they've been, what they're doing now and what they're up to next week. We are stalkers.

Yes, we are stalkers but that's okay. We are harmless. Well, I am anyway. We are not friends though and should not harbour any illusions. We should bear in mind that some stalkers are not harmless. I guess what I'm getting at with this piece is that it's best not to ruin it. It's nice hanging out on twitter with actors and musicians and other people I admire from a distance, especially when they appear to take some small notice of me. If there's an opportunity to introduce myself in person I won't hesitate to do it if the situation seems appropriate. I know that some people really like when this happens. I wouldn't do this when faced with someone who is very famous unless I felt I had something to say that this person would find particularly interesting. I know who I am. I do well to remember that just because Michael McKean (@MJMcKean) once retweeted me and David Mitchell (@RealDMitchell) liked something I had to say once and replied, this does not mean I'm famous. And why would I want to be famous anyway? I'm happy with my nearly 200 followers. I doubt I'll ever have much more than that. If you like to go fishing for entertainment people to rub shoulders with though, Karaoke Circus is as good a place as any. You might have the opportunity, as I did, to say to Chris Addison (@mrchrisaddison) "Hey Chris, nice job on that Pet Shop Boys song" while he's pissing into a metal trough. Or you could say to Kevin Eldon (twitter account unknown), "I had no idea you could sing so well" while he's desperately trying to step around you. Just remember who you are. Statistically the following are very safe bets. You are never going to play on Later with Jools Holland. You are never going to star in your own sitcom. You are never going to get Ben Stiller (@RedHourBen) to follow you. And remember that there are many hundreds or thousands (sometimes millions) who would also like to be their "friend".

Delivery of new DELL laptop, thanks for the incredibly short notice!

I got this email from DELL yesterday.

Dear Matt Flaherty,

Your Dell Order is scheduled to arrive between 08:00 and 18:00 on the 18/05/2010. Please arrange for someone to be there throughout this time - as we cannot be more specific about the time of delivery.

As your order is already on its way we regret it's too late to change the following details:

1.      delivery date
2.      delivery address
3.      order details

You can track your package, via the Syncreon website, simply by pasting this link into your internet browser: http://www.walshwestern.com/scripts/trackntrace.htm

Your invoice will arrive separately within the next two weeks or alternatively account holders with Dell may access the following site to download a copy of your invoice. https://myfinancials.dell.com/landing.aspx?c=uk&l=en

Order Number - [withheld] Customer Number - [withheld].

This is an automated email that cannot accept replies.

Thanks,
Dell.

Yeah, thanks DELL. Thanks for the incredibly short notice and for letting me know that it's now too late to change delivery. This is the first message I've received from DELL since I placed the order about a week ago. I always thought they had good customer service. Well now I'm stuck working from home all day because my wife is teaching and somebody needs to be here. I had to cancel a meeting that was scheduled today. All I can say is it had better be worth it.

5 more reasons why the Paul Chambers decision was wrong

A few days ago I wrote about 5 reasons why I think the judge got it wrong in the Paul Chambers case, R v Paul Chambers, which was heard and decided on the 10th of May. Then later I published the extent of my communications with the Crown Prosecution Service that began on the 5th of March with a letter of complaint. Since the guilty verdict in this case was announced there has been a public outpouring of support that has included notable figures in the entertainment industry such as Stephen Fry and Graham Linehan. A fund has been setup to receive donations to help with Paul's fine and his appeal. I urge you to give what you can if you care about this. There will be costs despite that there are now some excellent communications lawyers working pro-bono on the appeal. I have been commenting in the Guardian "Comment is Free" section and exchanging ideas with some very bright people who have provided many insightful ideas that could help with the defence. I'll give credit where due.

Not all of the responses to this story have been positive. Some people have indignantly asserted that the defendant got what was coming to him, ought to have known better, got off lightly, etc. If you are one of these people I hope you will take the time to read my post about the 5 reasons and then read this one. This post sets out reasons 6-10 why I think the judge made a mistake. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I can only take the information that is available to me and analyze it with reason and logic.

6. Section 127.1(a) of the Communications Act 2003 might not even apply because neither Twitter nor the Internet are public systems.
   Yes, your heard me. A precedent that has been referenced by the defence and considered by the judge is the case of DPP v Collins which was decided in the House of Lords in 2006. That case saw the same charge applied to a respondent for directing allegedly grossly offensive telephone calls and voice mail messages to the office of his local MP. In the conclusions under paragraph 7 is stated:
   
   

   The purpose of the legislation which culminates in section 127(1)(a) was to prohibit the use of a service provided and funded by the public for the benefit of the public for the transmission of communications which contravene the basic standards of our society. A letter dropped through the letterbox may be grossly offensive, obscene, indecent or menacing, and may well be covered by section 1 of the 1988 [Malicious Communications] Act, but it does not fall within the legislation now under consideration.

   Although the telephone network had been privatised before the 2003 law was enacted, it seems that its historical role was still a factor here. When it was run by the British Post Office it was provided and funded by the public and for the benefit of the public. The internet, on the other hand, grew up as a defence project in the United States. ARPANET is what it was called back in the 1960s-70s. In 1985 the US National Science Foundation commissioned the construction of NSFNET to connect university science departments. This spawned worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies. The network was first opened to commercial interests in 1988. In the 1990s all the TCP/IP networks around the world were interconnected and commercialized to form what we know today as the global Internet. ISPs provide service to their customers for profit. Twitter, an application service running on the internet, is not paid for by public funds. It is a private network that requires membership for participation but not for reading tweets on its timeline. I don't know how they make their money, but I'm pretty sure I'm not paying for it with taxes :)
7. Section 127.1(a) of the Communications Act 2003 might not even apply because Twitter communication is not (necessarily) in real time.
   In his excellent law blog Andrew Sharpe, a partner at Charles Russell LLP, suggests that the original intent of the law has been corrupted through various reenactments. He traces its genealogy back to a 1935 act of Parliament called the Post Office (Amendment) Act, specifically section 10(2). By way of comparision, here is that original statute followed by today's version:
   
   

   Section 10(2) of the Post Office (Amendment) Act states:
   

   If any person-
   (a)  sends any message by telephone which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character; or
   (b)  sends any message by telephone, or any telegram, which he knows to be false, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety to any other person; or
   (c)  persistently makes telephone calls without reasonable cause and for any such purposes as aforesaid;
   he shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

   section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 states:
   
   Improper use of public electronic communications network

   (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
   (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications
   network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
   (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
   (2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
   (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
   (b) causes such a message to be sent; or
   (c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
   (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

   Sharpe argues as follows:
   
   

   Given that in 1935 there were basically only two public communications systems, one a real-time system (telephone), the other not (telegraph), there is the basis for an argument that the original intent of section 10(2)(a) has been corrupted during the number of re-enactments of this provision.  It can be argued, in a Sweet v Parsley most favourable interpretation sense, that the mischief Parliament intended to address in section 10(2)(a) was unlawful messages sent by direct, real-time communications.  If non-real-time communications had been intended to be included, then the section would have referred to telephone and telegraph, as it does in section 10(2)(b).  Indirect communications were not within the scope of this provision at all. To cite a 1935 analogy to Twitter, would Parliament debating the 1935 Bill have accepted that the posting of a telegram on a public house notice board would be within the scope of clause 10(2)(a).  We do not think so.

   Nor do I. It seems clear at least to my non-legal mind that the original law respects that immediate communications have much more power to shock and offend because it is so difficult for the recipient to take a step back and gain a different perspective. What is threatening now, in real time is unpredictable and frightening. A telegram or a message left on an answer phone may be threatening and offensive but can be received with much more objectivity. It can also be shared with others and mitigated in many other ways. It can also be completely disregarded.
   
   When I was about ten years old I received a crank phone call at home. I answered the phone to a male voice who eventually began to make sexually explicit remarks. After about a minute I hung up the phone. Everything about that phone call remains crystal clear in my memory even though I never mentioned it to anyone before I told my wife about it yesterday. I cannot even repeat it in print after nearly three decades, that's how strong was the shame I felt. It was an immediate violation which I could not view as an outside observer. If I had been living in Britain, this is precisely the type of mischief that this law was intending to criminalize. An answer phone message would not have had the same immediacy even if it had been aimed specifically at me. The phone call was not aimed at me as the caller was unfamiliar with me and may not have even realized that he was speaking to a child. But it WAS me who was engaged with the caller; therefore, it was highly personal and a direct violation.
8. The judge was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tweet was menacing in its context, but he looked at the wrong context.
   In his summation, District Judge Bennett writes:
   
   

   The context is we live in a society where there are huge security concerns particularly in relation to airports and air travel. I do not need to repeat the very real incidents there have been in the UK in recent years let alone worldwide. With that background I can have no doubt that the remark posted by the defendant is menacing.

   The judge is wrong. The context is that the message was delivered in a conversational style to a known group of people who follow the timeline. The defendant was not imagining that his tweet would be called up in a search and viewed by a person who does not follow his tweets. The context is that the defendant was frustrated by a situation beyond his control and made an exaggerated remark assuming powers that he does not have in order to compensate for his feelings of lack of control. We have all done similar things. The judge ought to have looked at the context in which the message was delivered and the psychology around it rather than simply "the times in which we live". This line of thinking is mostly to the credit of Mark Phillips, a linguistics expert with whom I've been speaking.
9. The judge was convinced that Chambers was at the very least aware that his tweet was menacing, but he didn't bother to ask another Twitter user.
   This may be a failure of the defence, as not a single witness was called apart from the defendant himself. In discussing intent, the judge says:
   
   

   The defendant has maintained in lengthy interviews and also in giving evidence before me today that he had no such intention. He points out the slim likelihood that anyone just on the “Twitter” site would ever see his posting.
   
   However, I do not have to accept what the defendant tells me about his state of mind at face value. I also note the defendant is an experienced, and clearly very heavy user, of “Twitter”. Furthermore he has travelled by air, although he had not used Robin Hood airport previously. I found strange his evidence in relation to airport threats not seeming to relate to him and appearing to be in another world.

   I wish I had been called to testify. I could have explained to the judge the state of mind in which a tweet such as this one is made. I am an experienced Twitter user and internet applications developer specializing in communication and collaboration software. I know that although these messages are public, there is an expectation of a certain degree of privacy albeit a naive one. We do not expect our semi-private conversations to be monitored by airport security officials or police who are looking for "evidence" of dangerous criminal activity. I also know that Twitter's novel form gives rise to quick and sometimes thoughtless remarks. I am a reasonable person and I would hope that the judge would be forced to conclude that a reasonable person would not find such a message menacing in its proper context.
10. A successful conviction encourages the security industry to mine our public communications this way, which is a waste of time and effort.
    Yes, police time was wasted. I suppose airport security time was also wasted. But whose fault is this? Not Paul's. These people need to manage their time appropriately. How often has this type of scrutiny of electronic communications actually prevented an act of violence or terrorism? I don't know the answer, but I know that it did not in this case. I suspect that it does not in the vast majority of cases, yet they will carry on doing it. The justification is in the one hypothetical act of terrorism that perhaps would not be prevented if this information were ignored. But there are other ways of preventing crime and goodness knows we've allocated plenty of resources. Ultimately this is a disgraceful waste of public funds to investigate and prosecute a person who is basically not a real threat in any sense. I wish these people would stop.