Twitter and social media do not make certain things different.
A scam is still a scam, even if Twitter is used as part of con.
There are allegations by the highly regarded political and legal tweeter @PME200 on his blog as to the real life conduct of the person operating the "Lord Credo" account.
This is not the place to say whether such allegations are correct, though I note the operator of that account admitted to dishonesty before the account was deleted.
However, if the allegations are correct, they do not constitute a "Twitter con".
Instead it was a con that happened to involve Twitter, and not - say - the telephone or the postal service.
Similarly, the "incitements to riot" currently being charged in respect of Facebook are not "Facebook problems".
It just happens that was the medium which was used.
The fact that a social media platform was used should not, by itself, mean that an offence is any more or less serious as long as the requisite elements of the offence are otherwise made out.
This also extends to the Mabus affair (the subject of a thorough blogpost by the excellent Tim Farley).
Like many others in the on-line atheist (complete lack of) community, I had endless spam and death threats from Mabus. I personally regarded the threats as non-credible and deleted them along with the rest of the daily clutter in my inbox.
However, others took a different view (as they were fully entitled to, as it would be them and their families at risk), especially when the strange chap started turning up to events, and organised so as to successfully prompt a police investigation.
For me the Mabus affair was not a Twitter or social media issue; if there were death threats then the police should address their mind to them, regardless of whether the threats were in a tweet, an email, or on a postcard. If the police now take it further and prosecute, they are the best placed to make that decision.
In overall terms, the principle should surely be that the law should be neutral in respect of social media and internet-based publications: a con is a con, an incitement is an incitement, and a death threat is a death threat, regardless of whether it is on a social media platform or by some other medium.
Nothing should be a criminal act - or not be a criminal act - just because it was effected using social media.
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.