The offending tweet:
“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”
The judges comment that he was ‘satisfied’ that the message was of a ‘menacing nature in the context of the time we live in’ is disingenuous at best and at worst is just fucking wrong.
The offending element is the use of the word ‘context’, as this conviction seems to be predicated entirely on the refusal to acknowledge that a layer of context has been removed.
This layer of context, which would render the comment at worst ‘in bad taste’ or more probably in the ‘utterly shite joke’ category, was one of frustration and the irony that (as put into the context of his entire twitter output) he was of good character and had no ties to terrorism.
The disregard of the (rather important) layer of context of original intention in order to base and implement your judgement upon another which you at a later date have defined renders the judgement null. For example: charging a soldier with the death of another soldier after choosing to ignore that irritating obstruction to conviction, the context of ‘war’.
Although I’ve not yet seen it, I doubt even Chris Morris’ bumbling jihadis would be thick enough to pre-publicise a terrorist attack through such ineffectual means as twitter.