Can someone please explain

A bigger collection of vacuous nonsense I have never seen.

 

Depends who you follow I guess.

 

This. Bizarrely, the most vacuous RL person I follow is Ogden.

 

WTF have you been smoking old fella?

 

#twitterjoketrial
#IamSpartacus

Just for context you are aware of the full background?

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/09/appeal-of-paul-chambers.html

2 days for him to be arrested hardly constitutes menace. Note on
police file that CPS did not disclose until appeal:

"There is no evidence at this stage that this is anything other than a
foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends
to see."

CPS and judge both badly wrong. I hope he takes it to next stage of
appeal.

 

But, with a criminal record, prohibited from pursuing his chosen
career of accountancy...

 

Exactly my point, which seems otherwise to have been missed.

 

Hey-ho. Should've thought of that before being a twat, shouldn't he?

Umm, on what grounds? Sure, it'll make finding a job slightly more
difficult, but I fail to see why it would bar him from qualifying or
practicing as an accountant, since it's not really a relevant offence,
like fraud.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=994076

 

She said "twitter", not "Switters".

 

No missed, just irrelevant.

 

You say "a twat", I say "flippant".

My favourite article on this whole shoddy mess however, is this one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/11/2?CMP=twt_gu

Well, for starters the rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not
apply to the accountancy profession. And secondly I believe he lost
his job, which was sponsoring his education.

 

*Searches for 'like' button.*

 

Should we compromise on "flippant twat"? And, yes, I know being a
flippant twat is not actually illegal. I'd be doing life without hope of
parole if it was.

CMP=twt_gu

"Chambers faces fines in the thousands of pounds"

No, he doesn't. He faces _costs_ in the thousands. Because of his
insistence on appealing to ever-higher costs. But the fine was £385.

Indeed. So his offences don't become spent. Still doesn't "prohibit" him,
though.

Again, not "prohibited".

 

Entirely relevant. The point of the original Spartacus incident was
that all the slaves were claiming to be guilty of Spartacus' original
offence. In the current tweeting none of the tweeters can claim to be
guilty of the same offence as the original tweeter, because that
offence depends partly on motive which the later tweeters (at least
those mentioned here) don't share.

 

So you think that the original tweeter had motive to really blow up the
airport?

 

Actually, it's not the poppy burning that irks me, it's that it's not those
cunts that are burning.

 

I think we've already done that.

 

You think it's a crap way of making a point because it doesn't exactly
follow the plot scenario of the film?

 

Apparently his appeal failed and he's now faced with a further 2000 quids
worth of court costs, plus his own teams costs.

 

No I don't. It was badly phrased.

Paul Chambers was convicted of sending a menacing electronic
communication. It is a moot point whether or not the message was
indeed menacing, or could be interpreted as menacing.

There is no likelihood of the current tweets being considered as
menacing in intent or interpretation. Their originators will not
therefore be charged as was Paul Chambers.