Political censorship by old Bill.

[meatballs]

Re: kids - "annoyed" "irritated" but not offended.

So we have to stifle political discourse to prevent irritation now?

[R1 Dave]

BertBert said:

R1 Dave said:

.
In my view the word b*locks displayed in public would constitute a s5 POA offence. I was unaware of any case law around the particular word and its not reasonable to expect the officer to have been either .

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the officer to be knowledgeable about the law he is trying to enforce.
Bert

You expect every police officer to be knowledgeable on every case ever brought to court?! Be reasonable.

This is the wording of s5 poa:

A person who:

is in a public or private place (exceptions for persons in dwellings ...)
who intending what they are doing to be threatening, abusive or disorderly, or being aware that it is likely to be so
either:
uses:
threatening or abusive words or behaviour or
disorderly behaviour, or
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which was threatening or abusive
within the hearing or sight of a person
likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress
(when applicable) racially or religiously aggravated

According to the news article the chap complaining (a friend of the driver if I recall correctly) even accepted that some would find it offensive but just didn't like it being enforced. It's interesting the driver isn't the one complaining though. As an aside it's not even as if they were fined or reported , they were simply asked to remove the offensive word. Seems perfectly reasonable.

One point to note is that we don't know what brought the officer to be there, for all we know someone may have made a complaint to the police about finding it offensive and the officer responded to that complaint in a low level way.

[Peter3442]

Isn't there a brand of men's underwear b***x. There's fk that was on every high Street. Is it really the word that upsets or its use in relation to Brexit?

[anonymous-user]

Should have told the copper to fk off. Idiot. Hoprefully they'll reprimand him and remind the muppet who he serves.

[R1 Dave]

meatballs said:

Re: kids - "annoyed" "irritated" but not offended.

So we have to stifle political discourse to prevent irritation now?

There is absolutely nothing political about the word boll*cks!! It's just a catchy slogan, one which isn't diminished in any way by asterixing out a letter or two.

[anonymous-user]

R1 Dave said:

It's not snowflakey at all, as a society we are more liberal with language than we've ever been. I, too, would be irritated if my 6 year old read a swear word emblazoned on the side of a car in the same way that I find it unacceptable for people to be swearing around children in public.

In my view the word b*locks displayed in public would constitute a s5 POA offence. I was unaware of any case law around the particular word and its not reasonable to expect the officer to have been either but common sense would suggest its covered in the same way as other swear words. That said I do think the officer would have to have been epically bored to make an issue if it.

In my view, you're a snowlake, and your 6 year old probably kmows far more than you believe. It's not swearing in public, it's a slogan. What about fk, is that ok, or shall we waste 'valuable' Police time (taxpayers money) on more of this total BS.

[Peter3442]

Interesting, I wrote the name of a high street shop and pistonheads censored it!

[meatballs]

R1 Dave said:

There is absolutely nothing political about the word boll*cks!! It's just a catchy slogan, one which isn't diminished in any way by asterixing out a letter or two.

Asterisking makes fk all difference to the communicated message. So it's fking pointless.

fking for fking effect. Im not actually angry

Edited by meatballs on Monday 25th November 20:38

[R1 Dave]

yonex said:

R1 Dave said:

It's not snowflakey at all, as a society we are more liberal with language than we've ever been. I, too, would be irritated if my 6 year old read a swear word emblazoned on the side of a car in the same way that I find it unacceptable for people to be swearing around children in public.

In my view the word b*locks displayed in public would constitute a s5 POA offence. I was unaware of any case law around the particular word and its not reasonable to expect the officer to have been either but common sense would suggest its covered in the same way as other swear words. That said I do think the officer would have to have been epically bored to make an issue if it.

In my view, you're a snowlake, and your 6 year old probably kmows far more than you believe. It's not swearing in public, it's a slogan. What about fk, is that ok, or shall we waste 'valuable' Police time (taxpayers money) on more of this total BS.

I'm not a snowflake at all, I merely wish to avoid teaching my child profanities. I don't swear around my kids (though I have a terrible potty mouth in other circumstances) and don't expect others to either.

To be clear, I have already said the officer must have been epically bored, it's not something that would have bothered me in the slightest unless my kids had read it and started going around saying it. Amusing as it would sound coming from her mouth.

[anonymous-user]

R1 Dave said:

I'm not a snowflake at all, I merely wish to avoid teaching my child profanities. I don't swear around my kids (though I have a terrible potty mouth in other circumstances) and don't expect others to either.

To be clear, I have already said the officer must have been epically bored, it's not something that would have bothered me in the slightest unless my kids had read it and started going around saying it. Amusing as it would sound coming from her mouth.

You really do have an awakening due

[anonymous-user]

The police were out of order here. Outwith some specific contexts, none applicable here, speech that might offend some is not unlawful. There is in general no legal right not to be offended, and the right to free speech, subject to some qualifications, includes the right to offend.

[anonymous-user]

PS: This is not within a million miles of a section 5 offence.

[TypeR]

Nothing new here, VW were doing it in 2006. Anyone remember this ad?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow0a06gsiF4

[Red 4]

Breadvan72 said:

PS: This is not within a million miles of a section 5 offence.

Not wanting to split hairs with you here but nobody needs to be offended ( caused harassment, alarm or distress ) for s.5 POA to be complete.

It's only necessary to show that harassment, alarm or distress was likely.

I'm sure you know that

[R1 Dave]

yonex said:

R1 Dave said:

I'm not a snowflake at all, I merely wish to avoid teaching my child profanities. I don't swear around my kids (though I have a terrible potty mouth in other circumstances) and don't expect others to either.

To be clear, I have already said the officer must have been epically bored, it's not something that would have bothered me in the slightest unless my kids had read it and started going around saying it. Amusing as it would sound coming from her mouth.

You really do have an awakening due

Oh I'm fully aware of what's gonna happen but it doesn't make it wrong to try! :lol:

[Alucidnation]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow0a06gsiF4

[anonymous-user]

Red 4 said:

Breadvan72 said:

PS: This is not within a million miles of a section 5 offence.

Not wanting to split hairs with you here but nobody needs to be offended ( caused harassment, alarm or distress ) for s.5 POA to be complete.

It's only necessary to show that harassment, alarm or distress was likely.

I'm sure you know that

I do, but you have ignored the rest of the section. You cannot just pick one bit, you have to apply the whole thing.

[Bigends]

Breadvan72 said:

Red 4 said:

Breadvan72 said:

PS: This is not within a million miles of a section 5 offence.

Not wanting to split hairs with you here but nobody needs to be offended ( caused harassment, alarm or distress ) for s.5 POA to be complete.

It's only necessary to show that harassment, alarm or distress was likely.

I'm sure you know that

I do, but you have ignored the rest of the section. You cannot just pick one bit, you have to apply the whole thing.

Was the wording threatening or abusive? Maybe inappropriate but enough for a S5?

[spookly]

R1 Dave said:

BertBert said:

R1 Dave said:

.
In my view the word b*locks displayed in public would constitute a s5 POA offence. I was unaware of any case law around the particular word and its not reasonable to expect the officer to have been either .

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the officer to be knowledgeable about the law he is trying to enforce.
Bert

You expect every police officer to be knowledgeable on every case ever brought to court?! Be reasonable.

This is the wording of s5 poa:

A person who:

is in a public or private place (exceptions for persons in dwellings ...)
who intending what they are doing to be threatening, abusive or disorderly, or being aware that it is likely to be so
either:
uses:
threatening or abusive words or behaviour or
disorderly behaviour, or
displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which was threatening or abusive
within the hearing or sight of a person
likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress
(when applicable) racially or religiously aggravated

According to the news article the chap complaining (a friend of the driver if I recall correctly) even accepted that some would find it offensive but just didn't like it being enforced. It's interesting the driver isn't the one complaining though. As an aside it's not even as if they were fined or reported , they were simply asked to remove the offensive word. Seems perfectly reasonable.

One point to note is that we don't know what brought the officer to be there, for all we know someone may have made a complaint to the police about finding it offensive and the officer responded to that complaint in a low level way.

Go on then, I'll bite. How exactly is "bks to Brexit" threatening or abusive?
And please explain how any right minded person would be caused harrassment, alarm or distress.

You seem to have given evidence against your own argument.

[Red 4]

Breadvan72 said:

I do, but you have ignored the rest of the section. You cannot just pick one bit, you have to apply the whole thing.

Sorry BV, you've lost me there.

If a person displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress (with certain limitations and statutory defences available) then the offence is complete.

My point is that it is not necessary to show that a person was actually offended ( caused harassment, alarm or distress).

I was referring to your earlier post concerning your assertion that people do not have the right not to be offended.
ie if a person is likely to be caused alarm then the offence is complete.

There are many "ors" in the Section and Act.