Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

[Ally]

Regardless of your political views, surely there are better words or phrases to display a teeshirt than the f word.

As much as I like and enjoy using colourful language, I would agree with that 99.9% of the time. I don't even like the brand FCUK for that reason. Johnson, however, is a special case and no word is too strong, even the C word.

[Elizabeth]

To be honest ATS I don’t know a police officer( and I know lots ) who would have dealt with this in this manner ,but if you look strictly ,strictly at a section 5 Mrs Miggins could have found the T shirt abusive or offensive I am NOT saying that the officer should have done this but they are within the terms of the act
A lot is about context if you walked into a Labour Party meeting in this T shirt you would get applauded,a Conservative women’s tea party maybe not

[After the Storm]

Regardless of your political views, surely there are better words or phrases to display a teeshirt than the f word.

I agree. I prefer: 'Boris is a C***'

If she had printed on her T-shirt "Boris is a lying, cheating, ignorant, eltist twOt that is only interested in making his friends rich and doesn't give a flying fig about businesses or anyone else or about screwing up the country so in the next election don't vote for the b%sterd" then the writing would have to be awfully small.

[Lemorvan]

Unless she is a very large lass.

[After the Storm]

To be honest ATS I don’t know a police officer( and I know lots ) who would have dealt with this in this manner ,but if you look strictly ,strictly at a section 5 Mrs Miggins could have found the T shirt abusive or offensive I am NOT saying that the officer should have done this but they are within the terms of the act
A lot is about context if you walked into a Labour Party meeting in this T shirt you would get applauded,a Conservative women’s tea party maybe not

I did look at it the terms of the Act which is why I would like to have seen them try to argue that in court. Had a "Mrs Miggins " approached the officers and shown her distress that the T-shirt looked like it was inciting violence? Of course not and it would be a ridiculous thing to try to argue. That officer decided to make a judgement call by using a law that he knew no average member of the public is going to know the detail of (I now have my screenshots saved on my iPad ). It was not what the law was meant to be used for and I don't think they could have argued the case and won in a court over that t shirt. They'd either have had to have had Johnson there claiming he felt threatened she was going to act on the words printed on her t-shirt and maybe do what he has done to many others or someone else was upset that she might jump Johnson and f@ck him. Neither are plausible.
edit. Re your last line, I agree and will add Clause 5 is a poor clause with too much left perhaps to interpretation.

From my first link
Context of the Act
Britain has a long history of rioting; sometimes as a form of political protest, other times in the context of industrial disputes or as a reaction to feelings of disconnection between different parts of the community[3]. During 1984 and 1985, the long running miner’s strike saw a significant number of serious public order incidents as strikers fought running battles with the police[4]. The g common law powers that were relied upon to combat public order,, were felt to be inadequate to deal with the modern world.
The need for a new act came at the time that the nature of public order policing in the UK was undergoing a radical change. Until the late 1970s, the police approached tackling public order without any specialist training or equipment, preferring to rely on the image and reputation of the “British Bobby” to encourage compliance with the law[5]. The mass disorder during the miner’s strike led to the government concluding that this approach could no longer be relied on. Instead they oversaw a new regime where specialist uniforms, helmets and riot shields, as well as other equipment, were available to the police and significant training was developed to help officers control public order situations[6]. This new style of paramilitary policing rapidly became the norm, and this modernised style of policing needed a new legal structure to support it.
Even prior to the Miner’s Strike the Law Commission had recommended that the law on public order be modified, and following the strike the Government introduced a Bill into Parliament that in due course became the Public Order Act 1986[7]. The Law Commission had concluded that public order laws as they currently stood, comprising a mix of common law and statutory offences, was inadequate and ineffective, and that a comprehensive statute was required to bring the law up to date[8]; The Public Order Act 1996 was the result.

[Timoth]

I imagine that a Trump is Right tee shirt worn in front the American rioters might constitute provocation?

[Le Démerdeur]

Its the written use of the F and C words in the public domaine that are the public order issue and not the person who they are referring to although I admit that the person who was arrested in France with a message about Sarkozy probably would not have been if it were for any other person.

If the words contained asterisks it probably would have been OK, I know I hear the words on TV and I know that I read them here and on social media but very rarely if at all in mainstream media, AFAIK displaying them in public remains an offence in the UK, I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

I wish I were able to ask all the French people I see with **** written in big letters on their T shirts to cover them up or at the very least explain what they really mean, I have seen a childs T shirt in a grand surface with the writing "Daddies little **** toy" written in big letters. I had the difficult task of explaining to my French friends the adolescent daughter staying with me in the UK to do stage I had organised not to go out wearing her favorite T shirt reading **** YOU!

In my early 20's a friend had a ratty Capri, the trend was to have lettering under a sunstrip, "Fast Ford Club" was a favorite, he made one up saying "F****ed Ford Club" and was visited by the police and asked to remove it or face a public order charge as a complaint had been made.

Editted, it's probable that what I am speaking of is public decency and not public order so in which case you are correct ATS, but I do think that it is an offence to display the F and C word in the public domaine and dependant on the circumstances it would be reasonable to ask someone to cover them up, discretion is key, what might be a sensible course of action outside a childrens playground may not be so sensible at a flashpoint during a demonstation.

[Ally]

With everything that's going on in the world, particularly injustice, it astounds me the folk can still be offended by two four letter words. I was suspended from a local Facebook page this morning for referring to another members bigoted diatribe as "shite." In middle class Prestwick "shite" is more offensive than bigotry. My reinstatement will be short lived methinks.

[After the Storm]

their feccin loss then Ally

LD, what the bleep bleep have children's playgrounds got to do with anything? Me, I'm not fazed by the proper words but I've bleeped bleeped my words for you

The thread is about the Public Order Act which was meant to help define the law regarding riots and possible violent behaviour. Another crap legacy from Thatcher's time. (I'm not sure if I should have bleeped the word 'crap' too )

[Le Démerdeur]

I put at the end that you were right and the law I was thinking of which I still dont know what it is was more to do with public decency and outrage and not publis order.

Re the playground, its about officers of the law using their discretion, a complaint from a parent about a person hanging around a childs platground wearing a T shirt with the F or C word written in bold is more likely to justify advising the wearer than if I were to complain about the same word on a protestors T shirt in an inflammatory situation, they would probably weigh up the likely reaction and using their discretion not intervene.

The same person travelling home on a tube or train amongst families would probably be asked to cover up by the transport police.