But it wasn't ever treated by the CPS as a 'bomb hoax'
That's the point.
There is a specific offense to cover 'bomb threats'. When they found there wasn't enough evidence to bring a prosecution under it, Paul Chambers was arrested and charged under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
Their position was never that this was a bomb threat, but rather that it was a 'menacing' message based on a provision that had been in an earlier Communications Bill to stop people harrassing female telephone operators in the 1930s.
The problem isn't that time is spent investigating things that might be bomb threats, but that, when there isn't evidence to support that one has been made, the CPS attempt to find something else to charge people with.
(
Natt, Fri 27 Jul 2012, 14:45,
Reply)
My "point" is that someone made a complaint, and that's what started it all.
It wasn't a case of the Airport or Police just deciding they should take action after reading the Twitter post (which is how it's generally reported in the Press). Like I said, it shouldn't have gone as far as it did re: the CPS etc, so I agree with you. But it would be interesting to find out who ratted on him in the first place.
(
JamTallons, Fri 27 Jul 2012, 14:51,
Reply)