Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

A place for some light-hearted chat.
Post Reply
Timoth
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: Pas de Calais
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by Timoth »

I just reread the Peelian principles.

Policing seems to have come so far from these. It is time that they were reminded of them, so many of them are no longer adhered to.

As to sending six cops to bully a guy for filming a traffic warden, Gestapo tactics enforced by mediocrities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

After the Storm

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by After the Storm »

Flaneur wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:56 pm
Flaneur wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:21 pm
Also - imagine you're walking in the park and a bunch of blokes start f-ing and blinding. Do you ignore it, or do you politely ask them to tone it down a bit?
AtS, it's only those offences carrying more than 6 months which can be tried in the Crown Court, so aggravated s. 4 or 4A offences and then of course affray (s. 3) and above.

But back to the original question. I'm sure it was a political opinion rather than a proposal, but what about my analogy?
From what I read section 5 can carry up to a 2 year sentence, was that wrong?

I don't see what the point of your question is and see no analogy. Do you want me to start burning books that use language such as you describe as "f-ing and blinding"? Sorry to break it you but if you had ever been around me and mysty and something goes wrong when working on a place, you will hear plenty that you apparently might find distressing so why on earth would I walk up to a bunch of blokes swearing, I don't consider myself to be better than anyone else. I can assure you when mysty cut his foot with the angle grinder he did not hop around shouting "oh golly gosh".

After the Storm

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by After the Storm »

Re the OP, the fact that some might find the word F... rude or insulting is not what is important.
One excerpt from I read by Lord Glenarthur
"Words or behaviour which are rude or offensive are not necessarily insulting. In the Jordan case which I mentioned Lord Chief Justice Parker said that "insult" was used in the Public Order Act in the sense of "hit by words", which is what I believe the United States case law refers to as "fighting talk". It has to be distinguished from the strong expression of one's own views and criticism of opponents and their policies. Annoyance is not a reaction sufficient to justify describing the cause of the annoyance as "insulting". I could continue to refer to another quotation, but I think that I had better leave it there.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord that "insulting" has always been interpreted by the courts as a strong word, but that it does not mean merely rude or annoying; and that it does not need to be qualified by "seriously" in the Bill. "

User avatar
Flaneur
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:37 pm
Location: Hope
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by Flaneur »

After the Storm wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:19 pm
Flaneur wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:56 pm
Flaneur wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:21 pm
Also - imagine you're walking in the park and a bunch of blokes start f-ing and blinding. Do you ignore it, or do you politely ask them to tone it down a bit?
AtS, it's only those offences carrying more than 6 months which can be tried in the Crown Court, so aggravated s. 4 or 4A offences and then of course affray (s. 3) and above.

But back to the original question. I'm sure it was a political opinion rather than a proposal, but what about my analogy?
From what I read section 5 can carry up to a 2 year sentence, was that wrong?

I don't see what the point of your question is and see no analogy. Do you want me to start burning books that use language such as you describe as "f-ing and blinding"? Sorry to break it you but if you had ever been around me and mysty and something goes wrong when working on a place, you will hear plenty that you apparently might find distressing so why on earth would I walk up to a bunch of blokes swearing, I don't consider myself to be better than anyone else. I can assure you when mysty cut his foot with the angle grinder he did not hop around shouting "oh golly gosh".
Yes, I think you're wrong about sentence, but words like "harassment" are used in lots of Acts and it's easy to get confused. (If you can remember where you read it, I'd be interested.) Even aggravated s. 5 offences carry only a fine. However, it's relatively - can I say "easy"? - to consider a s. 4/4A offence was committed, because it's quite difficult to argue you didn't mean to cause offence when you call someone something offensive.

I am not surprised - given the views you have already expressed - that you would not be offended by swearing. That's not really the point, though, is it, unless your argument is "I'm not offended, so no-one else should be"? I imagine someone like Mr Trump would not be offended by a T-shirt which said "Black lives don't matter", yet surely you're not saying that, because a particular person wouldn't be offended, no-one has the right to be offended.

Again, if we go back to the original report, the policeman said the word was offensive. It is, and presumably was chosen for its shock value. I'm not any more impressed by this government's handling of - well, of anything - than you are, but the policeman's view was legitimate and people might well have been offended. The test isn't whether you would be offended! "Boris, resign!" "Boris, go!" or a host of alternatives would be available to any protestor.

And, whatever was said by Lord Glenarthur whenever (it's really important to give a reference for any quotation, because otherwise we can't judge whether it's relevant), it's not law!
Same old nonsense.

User avatar
Flaneur
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:37 pm
Location: Hope
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by Flaneur »

Ally wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 5:39 pm
The Public Order Act in operation.
A bit of a bully - they were two women he was being insulting to?

But obviously a quiet day for that police force :lol:
Same old nonsense.

Ally

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by Ally »

Very chivalrous but it's the 21st century. And he was making a valid point. I sometimes wonder if people on social media actually grasp what bullying and abuse are.

User avatar
FrenchForumSurvivor
Posts: 9197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:24 pm
Location: Finistère (29)
Has thanked: 1964 times
Been thanked: 2133 times

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by FrenchForumSurvivor »

I'm not going to repeat your post, AtS, but I give you the screenshot of your two separate screenshots:
s5poa.PNG
The second shot, ie the one underneath, deals with Section 4, not Section 5 of the POA 1986; the Section 5 offence does not have the word 'violence' anywhere in its description or definition. In other areas, putting the two photos together might be called deliberately misleading, here I'll just say it's a mistake on your part. :innocent:
"I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times." - Everett Dirksen

After the Storm

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by After the Storm »

Flaneur wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:35 pm
After the Storm wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:19 pm
Flaneur wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:56 pm


AtS, it's only those offences carrying more than 6 months which can be tried in the Crown Court, so aggravated s. 4 or 4A offences and then of course affray (s. 3) and above.

But back to the original question. I'm sure it was a political opinion rather than a proposal, but what about my analogy?
From what I read section 5 can carry up to a 2 year sentence, was that wrong?

I don't see what the point of your question is and see no analogy. Do you want me to start burning books that use language such as you describe as "f-ing and blinding"? Sorry to break it you but if you had ever been around me and mysty and something goes wrong when working on a place, you will hear plenty that you apparently might find distressing so why on earth would I walk up to a bunch of blokes swearing, I don't consider myself to be better than anyone else. I can assure you when mysty cut his foot with the angle grinder he did not hop around shouting "oh golly gosh".
Yes, I think you're wrong about sentence, but words like "harassment" are used in lots of Acts and it's easy to get confused. (If you can remember where you read it, I'd be interested.) Even aggravated s. 5 offences carry only a fine. However, it's relatively - can I say "easy"? - to consider a s. 4/4A offence was committed, because it's quite difficult to argue you didn't mean to cause offence when you call someone something offensive.

I am not surprised - given the views you have already expressed - that you would not be offended by swearing. That's not really the point, though, is it, unless your argument is "I'm not offended, so no-one else should be"? I imagine someone like Mr Trump would not be offended by a T-shirt which said "Black lives don't matter", yet surely you're not saying that, because a particular person wouldn't be offended, no-one has the right to be offended.

Again, if we go back to the original report, the policeman said the word was offensive. It is, and presumably was chosen for its shock value. I'm not any more impressed by this government's handling of - well, of anything - than you are, but the policeman's view was legitimate and people might well have been offended. The test isn't whether you would be offended!

And, whatever was said by Lord Glenarthur whenever (it's really important to give a reference for any quotation, because otherwise we can't judge whether it's relevant), it's not law!
You asked me to answer this question "Also - imagine you're walking in the park and a bunch of blokes start f-ing and blinding. Do you ignore it, or do you politely ask them to tone it down a bit? " and then tell me my answer is not the point, is that meant to be funny? You didn't ask me what would I do if a bunch of blokes were getting loud, aggressive, directing abuse at others not in their group and threatening someone. I answered the question you presented honestly but following what appears to be your line of argument then because I strongly dislike the upper class accent of English people, you think that I should go up to them and ask them to kindly shut up because their voices offend me. You mention Trump, I found his behaviour holding up a bible offensive, do you think I have the right to forbid him to ever handle a bible ever again? The law is not meant to be for trivial claims such as that or of someone considering a rude word offensive. The F word is not banned from the English language. The "policeman" got his interpretation of the law wrong imo.

I found the debating interesting on the amendments, such as this
Lord Monson
I gave a number of instances on Second Reading, and I shall not bore the Committee with them again today except to remind you that quite recently it appears that a number of people were quite gravely insulted by a photograph of the Labour parliamentary candidate for Fulham with his wife and children which appeared in an election address. That was considered to be grossly insulting to homosexuals. Therefore, nowadays people are insulted by very strange things.
As people can be sent to prison if convicted for offences under Clauses 4 and 5—and indeed the later clauses which I mentioned—it is extremely important that they should not risk being sent to prison for what most people would consider an extremely trivial insult.

That and the other quote came from this https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/198 ... cOrderBill

That debate started with this below which pretty much sums up the problem with it imo, some are going to use the law well and others unfortunately won't.
Lord Gifford
I spent the past five months examining relationships between the police and a community of people in Tottenham. What was obvious was a remarkable variation in the attitude and approaches of different police officers to questions relating to public order and to community grievances. Some officers showed intense interest and concern and a readiness to listen to and work with whose who had grievances to express. Other officers, of high rank and low, acted oppressively, roughly and in ways which were motivated by prejudice. There is no question of saying that laws such as this are going to be used well by the police or badly by the police, but in looking at this Bill we must avoid the danger of thinking of the police as some kind of monolithic entity.

After the Storm

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by After the Storm »

FrenchForumSurvivor wrote:
Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:56 pm
I'm not going to repeat your post, AtS, but I give you the screenshot of your two separate screenshots:
Image
The second shot, ie the one underneath, deals with Section 4, not Section 5 of the POA 1986; the Section 5 offence does not have the word 'violence' anywhere in its description or definition. In other areas, putting the two photos together might be called deliberately misleading, here I'll just say it's a mistake on your part. :innocent:
:roll: FFS, the talk on here has been of section 5 and generally of the Public Order Act hence 2 photos that refer to words said or written.

Le Démerdeur
Posts: 11745
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:22 pm
Location: Picardie and occasionally Sussex
Has thanked: 2112 times
Been thanked: 1633 times

Re: Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

Post by Le Démerdeur »

There has to be a legal reason why we never see the F or C word or come to think of it the the N word or many others displayed in a public place, after all it can't simply be collective politeness as the boundaries have been pushed way aside in almost every other media.

It probably isn't a public order offence or as ATS has puts it the Policeman got his (interpretation of the) law wrong but it must be a well established offence under some part of the law.

Can anyone recall what the message was on the T shirt that got the French guy in trouble regarding Sarkozy?

Post Reply