Olly Cromwell, Blogger Who Called His Councillor A C*** On Twitter: 'I Didn't Do Anything Wrong'

Huffington Post UK  |  By Posted: 16/04/2012 20:52 Updated: 16/04/2012 20:52

London-based blogger 'Olly Cromwell' faces a jail term for calling his local Bexley councillor a 'c***' on Twitter, after being found guilty of improper use of social media sites on Friday.

Cromwell, whose real name is John Graham Kerlen is facing a sentence of up to six months for the tweets, after Greenwich Crown Court found him guilty of the improper use of public electronic communications network, under a Section 127 offence of the Communications Act 2003.

That's 45 days for each letter of the swear word.

The first tweet which landed Kerlen in hot water was a post showing a picture of a Bexley councillor's house, with the caption "Which c*** lives in a house like this. Answers on a postcard to #bexleycouncil."

When asked why he wrote it, Kerlen told The Huffington Post UK there was "no malice intended" but whilst playing with his new phone, and living opposite the councillor, he thought he'd be "a bit of a joker" and post a picture of the house with words similar to the show Through the Keyhole.

"The tweet was topical (for me) as I had been 'investigating' the council and councillors for a while." he explained.

He later posted another tweet which said "It’s silly posting a picture of a house on Twitter without an address, that will come later. Please feel free to post actual s**t."

However Kerlen insists he never actually identified the councillor or where he lived.

"I didn't ever say whose house it was nor did I ever give the address, it was just an off the cuff remark that I made."

He explained that because he lived opposite the councillor's house it was in his own interests to protect his anonymity too.

"I never in a million years would have guessed that someone would recognise the house," he admits, saying that even the councillor in question only saw the offending tweets for the first time in court on Friday.

Despite that, when asked if he regretted sending the tweets, he replied "a bit of yes and a lot of no. Yes because of all the distress it's brought my family and myself. No because I do not believe I did anything wrong."

Although he describes the prospect of jail as "a little worrying," Kerlen has already been kept in police custody because of the tweets.

Arrested for harassment following the posts (a charge which was later dropped over lack of evidence) Kerlen spent eight hours in police custody.

On a separate occasion, a councillor reported him for breaching bail conditions. Kerlen explains:

"The police didn't investigate and I was found not to have breached bail by a District Judge in Bromley the following day. The reason I was kept in a cell overnight was because the police wanted to interview me again (which is unusual in breach of bail offences) so I missed the magistrate for the day."

However Kerlen says his barrister thinks the likelihood of a custodial sentence is unlikely. Even so, his legal advisors are concerned, as "the judge asked for a sentencing hearing and refused to sentence me there at the trial." (Kerlen is to appear in court again on 9 May.)

The proposed restraining order that may accompany the jail sentence, Kerlen believes is also "very, very severe."

"It's asking for me to be banned from contacting any councillors, owning any website that mentions councillors and is asking for me to remove posts from my site as it is harassment. Harassment which I was found not guilty of. This case isn't about harassment, it's about Section 127."

Kerlen intends to appeal the verdict, the sentence and the restraining order.

FOLLOW UK

 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
21:50 on 13/05/2012
I guess free speech isn't valued in England.
14:51 on 20/04/2012
This man did nothing wrong at all! not one thing! free speech
12:05 on 17/04/2012
This article really needs to make it clearer what the person is being prosecuted for.

"...found guilty of improper use of social media sites"

Huh? There's no crime called "improper use of social media sites". That would be ridiculous. Possibly relevant crimes are things like harassment, libel, and incitement to hatred. There may even be a new internet-specific law that could apply, but it certainly wouldn't be called "improper use of social media sites". Laws need to be a bit more specific than that in order to be tested in a courtroom!

There's also no law against swearing, by the way, or against saying mean things about people. The comments under this article show that a lot of people have got that impression from it. Please edit it to make it clearer what the crime is.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miserable Swine
14:57 on 17/04/2012
Why do I get the feeling that HPost is becoming more and more like The Sun? :(
11:29 on 17/04/2012
Not worth time and money for prosecution but sadly using such language is getting more typical in public online and in towns and cities. I find listening to the use of f word etc so horrible when I'm out and about especially with my grandchildren and fear the day they'll think they need to use the word to fit in! I hope they never feel that need.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miserable Swine
10:18 on 17/04/2012
Is this guy facing possible prison because he called someone a `c**t` or because he has somehow `incited` people to harassment (did he post the address of the councillor; was the councillor `harassed` or `felt threatened`?)

Seems to me that `Social networking` has lost its freedom, and now you have to have a law book (or a solicitor handy) to keep you within the law(s) covering electronic communications. What we`d take as a rash or ill-thought-out comment (or legitimate grievance worded too strongly) could now see someone banged up. Have the authorities really not got anything better to do? If the CPS are really stupid enough to make a case of this, then I hope the guy gets a £50 fine or something `wrist-slappy`. We`re not too far from 1984 on this one. Anyone who loves free speech would be well advised to avoid Twitter. That includes me.
06:16 on 17/04/2012
bit ridiculous that he feels sorry for his family but not the person he verbally assaulted. That's a horrible word, not sure why anyone would use it other than for shock value, and thats lame, especially for an adult.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miserable Swine
10:20 on 17/04/2012
Is that a twitching of curtains I hear?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christos Palmer
Χριστός Παλμερ
00:49 on 17/04/2012
Improper use of social media sites! Jeez, we're all going to jail! LOLS!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miserable Swine
10:19 on 17/04/2012
Before the Great Twitter Purge, I could have easily been banged up for a few rash comments. 1984 here we come!
23:40 on 16/04/2012
I feel that calling posting a picture of a councillor's house is wrong but calling one c**t is not worth the costs involved for this case. I hope the councillors involved can grow thicker skins before their seats come up for election again or perhaps Mr Kerlen could stand?
06:17 on 17/04/2012
wow ... if that's a normal word to use i won't be visiting your part of the world any time soon.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miserable Swine
10:20 on 17/04/2012
Good. You`re not welcome.
22:21 on 16/04/2012
Derek and Clive Live had a sketch using similar words years ago....No one took offence before and they weren't prosecuted either. The councillors concerned need to remove the butt plugs from up their arses and get real in the 21st century and stop living a luddite past. Mind you, given that the defendants website clearly exposes the councils inadequacies, misdoings, wrongdoings and other issues that might concern the public who are funding them his comment might have some validity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drg40
Representative Democracy is all we have.
08:21 on 17/04/2012
I think you will find that quite a number of Counillors ARE in the 21st century and are so tired of canvassing houses where they are told "all politicians are corrupt" not because the speaker has any evidence for that, or has ever before met a real live politician, but merely because that's what Murdoch and the Murdoch minions on the BBC told him to think. And the politician is expect to grow a thick skin and forget it? I saw one so called voter (probably never ever actually voted is his life) walking past a politician In the street, shouting out to everybody that all politicians are corrupt and then hurrying on, smirking, on his way. He said in court that he THOUGHT the politician should have a thicker skin, but his solicitor and the judge didn't agree and he had to settle. He thought, like you, that he could point to every wrongdoing of any Counillor up and down the country to justify his slander, and it just made it more obvious that he was a loud mouthed idiot. If I were you, I should read up on the Luddites. You can't even get that right.
21:58 on 16/04/2012
Oh right! Me neither.
21:23 on 16/04/2012
i have never been sure what it means when you call a person that name
23:29 on 16/04/2012
I believe one is required to believe the subject is a malodorous genitalia of the feminine variety !