Fec Boris tee shirt you can be arrested for wearing one

[Flaneur]

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?

No, we know what you find acceptable (and I'm surprised you want to admit to disliking people's accents! - that's as bizarre as someone disliking me because they think I sound a bit camp. But hey-ho.)

But not everyone is like you. Remember, we're talking about someone wearing a t-shirt with a swear-word on it, and whether that has the capacity to be offensive.

You may think it is trivial, and I imagine you are not alone. But there are plenty of people who would ask a group of men who were swearing to tone their language down, and plenty of people who understand the difference between the sort of language suitable for a building site (or police station canteen or robing-room or hospital relaxation area) and what is suitable for a different situation. It's about register.

I raised the analogy with Trump and the black lives t-shirt to illustrate that the argument is not and cannot properly be about what you personally find offensive.

(I think I see what caused your confusion. The clauses of a bill are not numbered the same as the sections of a statute.)

[After the Storm]

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?

No, we know what you find acceptable (and I'm surprised you want to admit to disliking people's accents! - that's as bizarre as someone disliking me because they think I sound a bit camp. But hey-ho.)

But not everyone is like you. Remember, we're talking about someone wearing a t-shirt with a swear-word on it, and whether that has the capacity to be offensive.

You may think it is trivial, and I imagine you are not alone. But there are plenty of people who would ask a group of men who were swearing to tone their language down, and plenty of people who understand the difference between the sort of language suitable for a building site (or police station canteen or robing-room or hospital relaxation area) and what is suitable for a different situation. It's about register.

I raised the analogy with Trump and the black lives t-shirt to illustrate that the argument is not and cannot properly be about what you personally find offensive.

(I think I see what caused your confusion. The clauses of a bill are not numbered the same as the sections of a statute.)

You are not getting it are you, you are making this personal not me. As to accents, my point is that would be as ridiculous as the question you put to me. I have no idea why you keep saying not everyone is like you, I haven’t said they are or should be I thought the thread was about what the law is, you decided to make it about me with your question and your answer. I will say again, the Act is not about trivial things like someone finding a word offensive. The F word is not banned and there must be a lot of people with TVs in their houses in the U.K. that are never switched on giving how often you here it on tv there.
Stop your digs about it being what I think, my comments were based on what I read about what the law was/is to cover nothing to do with what I do or do not find offensive. Maybe you shouldn’t ask questions on what I or anyone should do if you dont have any respect for their answer.
And thanks I wasn’t confused considering it is headed Public Order Act

Edit And you spend the time like I did reading the link I gave you will understand why I used the word TRIVIAL because that is the word used by them in debating that law with regard to what should be considered offensive or insulting but I can see why you might have been confused without reading it in your haste to answer me.

[FrenchForumSurvivor]

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.

Except that the second photo has nothing to do with section 5, so it's misleading to imply it does. FFS.

[After the Storm]

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.

Except that the second photo has nothing to do with section 5, so it's misleading to imply it does. FFS.

As I said before this thread has talked about the Public Order Act as well as reference to Section 5 and other parts and I gave both photos with them referring to words written the discussion did not start with reference just one part of the Act but regarding what was written on a t shirt, I gave them because I thought it would useful to give them to explain why I thought what they did was wrong. I also gave the link to where the screen shot was taken from.

First mention of the Act on this thread below.

I think that policeman is wrong.

The Public Order Act is a great catch-all piece of legislation. The Policeman is simply issuing a warning to someone breaching it - he did not invent it.

It dates back to 1986 - so presumably Maggie's response to the miners.

As per my comment on the "Is there a future?" thread - viewtopic.php?p=156474#p156474 - rights get removed, not created.

[After the Storm]

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.

Except that the second photo has nothing to do with section 5, so it's misleading to imply it does. FFS.

Rather than accusing me of being misleading, go back and show me how I was being misleading. I didn’t say what you are saying, they are screen shots, one had a heading the other didn’t, I didn’t give them headings.

[After the Storm]

She should have taken his name and number and reported him, no wonder people don’t have a more positive opinion about the police when they act like cretins at times.
Edit. Time to dig out the Clash t shirt with the Facist Regime when I next travel back then.

To be fair ATS there probably was nothing to report him for. As J says under the Public Order Act it could be seen as an offence. Most police officers have bigger things to worry about. BTP are who you would want by your side if it kicks off but they sometimes lack the people skills of home office police

On this one we are going to disagree . To use the Public Order Act to ask her to cover up her t shirt was wrong and I'd love to know how they would have argued their case in front of a jury. Of course police officers too try to get away with throwing mis information out to get someone to do something. Such as when they use the law that was meant to be for dealing with terrorists but the police would threaten to use where it did not apply. I don't disagree with you about who I want by my side if there was some kind of incident. However, that does not mean I believe that anyone in a uniform should get a free pass when they get it wrong. If the BTP, police or customs overstep their authority or intervene in the way they did here then their name and numbers should be taken and they should be reported, it's because of their behaviour like in this instance that people lose trust in them.

Public Order Act 1986 https://www.lawteacher.net/acts/public-order-act.php
Will add screen shots up in a minute to this post.

I am not a police officer or lawyer so if I have got the sections of the Public Order Act wrong below, no problem just tell me and I will correct it.



I'd love to see Johnson in court saying how he was upset or alarmed or distressed by the idea of someone f@cking him.

Interesting the accusation of being misleading considering i said "I am not a police officer or lawyer so if I have got the sections of the Public Order Act wrong below, no problem just tell me and I will correct it." Funny I said "sections" plural, so why the attack FFS with you claiming I implied they were both from Section 5.
Also I asked that if I had it wrong to let me know so I could correct it.

Thanks guys, I am now out of here, those that claim to be offended by the word fuck think nothing of making accusations and turning something that has nothing to do with personal opinions as such made it personal rather than on the letter of the law.

[bluebird]

I'd have thought wearing a 'f**k Boris' tee shirt would have been mandatory

[Flaneur]

I do admire the way you back yourself into a corner and still refuse to give up, AtS!

I think you are right that an offence contrary to s. 5 of the 1986 Act was not committed - but I do think that the BTP officer acted properly and within the principles of policing by consent.

[FrenchForumSurvivor]

Interesting the accusation of being misleading considering i said "I am not a police officer or lawyer so if I have got the sections of the Public Order Act wrong below, no problem just tell me and I will correct it." Funny I said "sections" plural, so why the attack FFS with you claiming I implied they were both from Section 5.
Also I asked that if I had it wrong to let me know so I could correct it.

Thanks guys, I am now out of here, those that claim to be offended by the word fuck think nothing of making accusations and turning something that has nothing to do with personal opinions as such made it personal rather than on the letter of the law.

Whether you intended it or not, the posting of the one screenshot following the other implied that the two were related, which they are not. As you asked, I said you were mistaken, I didn't say you were misleading. And I'm not offended by the word, never said I was, but as you said somewhere earlier, we were talking about the law and if we're talking about the law it's useful to get it right.

[bluebird]

All said and done, have the police really nothing better to do? Folk are still being stabbed, raped, mugged etc. In having a go at someone wearing a tee shirt, the idiotic police could be accused of going for the 'low hanging fruit' in terms of everyday offences.