Via Phil in comments, a badly reported story of idiots screwing each other over in a way that may have disturbing implications for non-idiots.
The story, at least according to the BBC is that Gavin Brent, who in fairness does look like a thick twat, got arrested for some kind of arcane Internet thievery. DC Steve Lloyd interviewed Mr Brent over said thievery; then went on paternity leave whilst Mr Brent was being charged. Mr Brent then ranted on his blog about how shit it was that he was being arrested and how the officers arresting him were cunts, suffixed with \”P.S. – D.C. Lloyd, God help your new-born baby\”.
This isn\’t A Clever Thing To Do. However, in the eyes of anyone who isn\’t certifiably, immediately and permanently paranoidly deranged, it\’s entirely fucking clear that that sentence means means \”I hope your baby manages to get around the handicap of having a dad who\’s an utter dickhead\”, not \”I\’m going to set fire to your baby\”. Unfortunately for Mr Brent, DC Lloyd is indeed a paranoid dickhead, and hence charged Mr Brent with [something]. The magistrates – possibly because most magistrates are complete and utter lackeys who\’ll convict anyone of anything the police ask no matter what the actual law may be – found him guilty and fined him Â£150.
The reason for the [something] and the \”possibly\” is that the only report of this I\’ve been able to find is on the BBC website (plus a few ranty blogs that have linked to it), and in the style of most \”ooh, comedy interest\” local news stories, the reporting is a pile of arse and doesn\’t mention the actual offence with which Mr Brent was charged. Equally unfortunately, Mr Brent\’s blog has been deleted and I\’ve not been able to track down any archives or backups of it.
Readers, do you have any more info on this story? In particular, I\’d be interested to see a) what the hell he was charged with and b) any evidence at all that the magistrates were justified in concluding that \”any reasonable person would find the words about the baby to be menacing in the context of the overall blog\”. Because unless the evidence goes well beyond the BBC story there is none, and the magistrates should immediately be fired.
Update – thanks to Mike in comments:
Here is the blog in question; the original charge sounds like an utterly malicious prosecution and I can see why the chap in question thinks the police and CPS in the case are cunts.
Reading between the lines and eliminating some of the self-justification, budget electronics site Ebuyer fucked up and sold him loads of stuff at bargain prices; he kept on ordering it, on the grounds that why the hell not, but when they realised their mistake they reported him to the police. Anyone who thinks it should be illegal to buy things cheaply from a website that a company is too stupid to make work is an idiot, and should be beaten to death. However, I can also see that Mr Brent\’s style won\’t have done him any favour with the company, the rozzers or the CPS [note: \”in the style of this blog\” is not how I act when dealing with authority, or indeed doing anything under my real name…]
But one thing that is entirely fucking clear is that his blog it is absolutely free of threats, but riven with whiney denunciations. This means that the magistrates who interpreted his whiney denunciation as a threat are moronic cretins; if someone successfully crucifies all three of them to death and posts the photos in comments here, I\’ll give them a fiver and a bag of chips.