Judge Jacqueline Davies – The Twitter Joke Judge

The twitter joke trial has now become main stream news thanks, almost entirely, to the blogging community.

The case itself it’s pretty shocking and has been dealt with by numerous other articles.

The aim of this article is not to discuss the specifics of case, but the latest Judge to become involved in this case – Judge Jacqueline Davies.

Judge Jacqueline Davies, pictured below, is a circuit judge. She was married to Paul Clark, also a judge, who died on October 6, 2008 (aged 68). 

Judge Jacqueline Davies

Judge Jacqueline Davies

During the appeal against the conviction of Paul Chambers Judge Jacqueline Davies stated that  the “[The Tweet was] menacing in its content and obviously so. It could not be more clear. Any ordinary person reading this would see it in that way and be alarmed. The airport staff did see it and were sufficiently concerned to report it……We find it impossible to accept that anyone living in this country, in the current climate of terrorist threats, would not be aware of the consequences of their actions in making such a statement.

Paul Chambers tweet, for those who have not seen it was

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!

A key part of her judgements is worth repeating, due to its sheer lunacy:

“[The tweet was] menacing in its content and obviously so. It could not be more clear. Any ordinary person reading this would see it in that way and be alarmed”

Given that thousands of people around the world repeated the words on Twitter, showed that many people do no find it phrase menacing.  Clearly the “ordinary” person reading those words was not in anyway alarmed.

The question is how “ordinary” is Jaqueline Davies to convict a man, on appeal, of little more than an understandable  tantrum?

A quick check of the internet will easily find people saying far more harmful things with no element of humour at all.

Below are a sample of comments taken from YouTube, found within a few moments:

  • god dam pope can burn on a stick shoved up his ass
  • You fringe neo-Nazi freaks
  • Hey shut the fuck up ur annoying kid , AND EAT MY NUTS NOOB

These quotes are all from the videos on subjects of science and politics, on  one of the worlds largest sites. The people making these comments tend to be repeatedly aggressive and threatening, with no hint of humour. Sadly this is the nature of the internet.

It’s highly unlikely that Jacqueline Davies is aware of the nature of the internet, forums, YouTube, Facebook, instant messaging or Twitter.

Paul Chambers next step is to head to the High Court.


WikiLeaks Under “Attack” by DDoS

Wikileaks is currently under a massive Distributed Denail of Service  according the BBC.

In other, and entirely unreleated news WikiLeaks is just about to release diplomatic cables that are both secret and embarassing for the US Government.

Information Commissioner – June 2009

The current Information Commissioner is Christopher Graham, who replaced the outgoing Richard Thomas

Chris Graham ICO

Chris Graham ICO

Christopher Graham became Information Commissioner in June 2009. The Information Commissioner is appointed by HM The Queen and has independent status, reporting directly to Parliament, with a range of responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998 and related laws. The functions of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) include promoting good practice, ruling on complaints and taking regulatory action.

Christopher’s career began at the BBC as a radio and TV journalist. Most recently he has been:

  • Director General of the Advertising Standards Authority;
  • Chairman of the European Advertising Standards Alliance; and
  • Secretary of the BBC.

He was a Non-Executive Lay Representative of the Bar Standards Board and a Non-Executive Director of Electoral Reform Services Ltd. He studied History at Liverpool University and his interests include media, music, singing, history and writing.

Data Theft – T-Mobile 1st Conviction

A former T-Mobile employee has admitted his role in the illegal sale of massive volumes of customer data to marketers.

David Turley, of Birmingham, 39, pleaded guilty to 18 charges under section 55 of the Data Protection Act at Chester Crown Court Un July 2010. A second former T-Mobile employee, Darren Hames, of Staffordshire, 38, will enter his pleas in relation to his alleged role in the theft on 23 November 2010

The illegal sale of millions of subscriber records was revealed by the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham last November, as part of a campaign for tougher sentences for data thieves.

The T-Mobile data was used to cold call and poach subscribers who were coming to the end of their contracts.

The Register

Data Theft – T Mobile (Nov 2009)

Personal details of thousands of mobile phone customers have been stolen and sold to rival firms in the biggest data breach of its kind, the government’s privacy watchdog said today.

An employee of phone operator T-Mobile sold the customer records, including details of when contracts expired. The millions of items of information were sold on for “substantial sums”, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said. Rival networks and mobile phone retailers then tried to lure away T-Mobile customers by “cold calling”.



Data Theft – T-Mobile 2nd Conviction

Darren Hames aged 38, from Staffordshire, who used to work for T-Mobile UK pleaded guilty at Warrington Crown Court to having sold confidential customer information from the telecom operator to third parties.

Darren Hames was found guilty under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act. Sentancing will not occur until the New Year (2011). The first man convicted in relation to this incident was David Turley, of Birmingham, 39,

The ICO statement on Hames

DNA Rention Limits – More of the Same

The Home Office is due to formally  state that their plan is to maintain the DNA data, of innocent people, for 6 years.

This is, of course, a lot longer than the zero time of many other countries and the UK less than a decade ago, but still a lot less than the previous policy of “forever”.

This statement now follows on from the previous statement in May 2009 by the government of the intention to retain the data fro 12 and 6 years, depending on the offense.

For those not acquainted with the reasons behind this change in the law this is due to the S and Marper V United Kingdom test cases in the ECHR, where they challenged, successfully the UK law on detaining, indefinitely the DNA samples of innocent.