My partner was once issued with repeated death threats, including a MAC 10 attack by a vicious, drug-dealing cretin neighbour who had just been visited by some serious villains. Sod all was done. Later the same turd and his partner fire-bombed a house round the corner and intimidated witnesses. This and a serious assault did lead to court sentence 18 months later.
So what is some poor sod who just tweeted some obvious rubbish doing in court? I’m all for people issuing threats being sent down, preferably within minutes of making the threats. It doesn’t happen and bullying generally gets no response. Old women and disabled people are subjected to what is really daily torture and nothing is done. So how do our increasingly mad cops, prosecutors and judges manage a farce like this? I’d like them arrested for no sense of humour, but they’d legislate, tell us jokes no one but them could find funny and send us to jail!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/24/twitter-joke-trial-bomb-threat
What really gets me is cops, CPS and the system just can’t throw their hands up and put themselves forward on charges of wasting police time and bringing the whole CJS into disrepute. This is an attack on free speech and gives us every reason not to trust authorities. Moat made much more serious threats that were ignored, presumably because Gadget was dealing with this crap. Not only as IG says can they not spot real threats in thousands of dud ones, they can find time to lose all sense of perspective, humour and decency over trivia. Paul has already been found guilty by one set of clowns – who are they and have they been dismissed? One hopes IG himself would have stopped this barking farce on his watch. It would be interesting to know if he thinks he could have.
Allcoppedout's Blog 
Well said!
A case which continues to enrage many citizens has its ‘basis’ in some unrealistic threat which no sane person could take seriously.
“I really do not know” or “He was a soft target with an incompetent defence” are the two main options for any reasonable response to “What is Paul Chambers doing in court?.”
Gadget is totally indifferent to the injustice Mr Chambers has endured and the former belongs to the pathological liar category, overly ambitious and incapable of resisting the exploitation of any bread and butter target.
In the UK we are overrun with corrupt policemen who think nothing of planting evidence to ensure convictions and deter appeals. How could you seek his opinion and keep a straight face, ACO?
Cops themselves don’t think they are bent Melvin. Generally, I didn’t find any who would take a few tenners to turn a blind eye, though I have seen this rife abroad. I believe they confuse this kind of honesty with the form that is really needed and they don’t have. My own view is that ‘management by objectives’ (as a generic term) is linked to very vile history and we have a fatal nexus of incompetence at work.
Key in Gadget analysis is an open mind on whether he is a cop or not, and if he is whether he actually blows any whistles. He does seem incapable of recognising that the many idiot cases police fail to deal with (like Eleanor) are a policing failure. I could interview him with a straight face, but then I used to ask questions like, ‘so you’ve never been to 13 Acacia Avenue then Billy?’ with the fingerprint evidence stashed in my briefcase.
“…My own view is that ‘management by objectives’ (as a generic term) is linked to very vile history…”
If you set people quantitative targets, you’ll get more and more Paul Chambers. You need quality targets to balance them out.
But in order to have quality targets, you must introduce subjective assessment. And then you open a further can of worms.
MBO has been described as not enough ‘M’ and too much ‘BO’. These management systems are essentially fealty systems. The “objective” decisions always turn out to be being made by pretty sick people.