Political censorship by old Bill.
Discussion
Roofless Toothless said:
I've just been reading with my six year old grand daughter. She's devouring anything she can read at the moment. If we walked past that car and she asked "what's b
ks mean, poppa?" I would be pretty annoyed. I think it is crude and thoughtless to display that sign.
So, no access to radio, TV, or internet just in case a liberal democrat appears waving a leaflet. It may suprise uou to know many six year olds are quite proficient in low level swearing.ks mean, poppa?" I would be pretty annoyed. I think it is crude and thoughtless to display that sign.Drumroll said:
donkmeister said:
As per the article, the word "bks" was the only thing they were made to remove.
As with all matters that oppress free speech, any outcome will always putting the rights of some people above the rights of others. At what point do you draw the line though? Should someone taking offence be sufficient cause to oppress speech, or should it cause (or be likely to cause) demonstrable harm somehow?
So are you saying we should be able to use any words without consequences? ks" was the only thing they were made to remove.As with all matters that oppress free speech, any outcome will always putting the rights of some people above the rights of others. At what point do you draw the line though? Should someone taking offence be sufficient cause to oppress speech, or should it cause (or be likely to cause) demonstrable harm somehow?
Where is being asked to remove a single written word oppressing speech.
[b]in your world this is acceptable: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50529...
After all it is free speech.[/b]
I didn't say that we should be able to use any words without consequences, in fact I asked where the line should be thus demonstrating that I think there should be a line!!!
However... what YOU have just posted above (bold added for emphasis, by me) besides making you look like an idiot who cannot read, is insulting and offensive. Apologise, you little b
ks. ETA apparently I didn't make it bold...
BertBert said:
R1 Dave said:
I'm not a snowflake at all, I merely wish to avoid teaching my child profanities.
Sorry if it feels like ganging up on you, but does profane mean what you think it does?/prəˈfanɪti/
noun
blasphemous or obscene language.
'an outburst of profanity'
synonyms: oath, swear word, expletive, curse, obscenity, four-letter word, dirty word, execration, imprecation, blasphemy, swearing, foul language, bad language, cursing, cuss, cuss word
My biggest issue here is not if the police were right or wrong to ask for the slogan to be altered.
What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
MB140 said:
My biggest issue here is not if the police were right or wrong to ask for the slogan to be altered.
What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
It doesn't say they were made to remove the stickers on the hard shoulder.What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
Says stopped at 1430hrs on motorway. Video posted on twitter at 1447hrs removing the stickers at services.
MB140 said:
My biggest issue here is not if the police were right or wrong to ask for the slogan to be altered.
What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
Agree, don't think it should be used for minor traffic offences either, police should direct person to come off at the next junction.What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
Red 4 said:
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.
Abusive is judged in context,and with realism. The word b
ks is a low order swear word, and in the light of cases such as Harvey v DPP (2011), R v Terry (2012), and Gough v DPP (2013), a section 5 prosecution would struggle. The fact that the word was used in the context of political speech, which is protected by article 10 ECHR, would be significant. Both on a law lecture analysis, and on a real world analysis, a prosecution here would fall on its face. Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 25th November 23:22
vonhosen said:
MB140 said:
My biggest issue here is not if the police were right or wrong to ask for the slogan to be altered.
What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
It doesn't say they were made to remove the stickers on the hard shoulder.What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
Says stopped at 1430hrs on motorway. Video posted on twitter at 1447hrs removing the stickers at services.
Either way if the passenger has to ring 999 to get the trafpol to move him to a service area then my point still stands. A motorway is a dangerous place to be.
MB140 said:
vonhosen said:
MB140 said:
My biggest issue here is not if the police were right or wrong to ask for the slogan to be altered.
What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
It doesn't say they were made to remove the stickers on the hard shoulder.What plonk of an officer thought it was acceptable to spend 40 minutes making two blokes remove the sign on the hard shoulder of the motorway. Indeed if I read the article correctly the passenger had to ring 999 expressing his concerns for his safety before trafpol escorted him to a service station to do it.
That alone deserves a reprimand.
Says stopped at 1430hrs on motorway. Video posted on twitter at 1447hrs removing the stickers at services.
Just pointing out that it can't have been 40 minutes on hard shoulder taking stickers off as you suggested.
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 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.
R1 Dave said:
You expect every police officer to be knowledgeable on every case ever brought to court?! Be reasonable.
.
Why not, the police expect us to be experts in the law, remember ignorance of the law is not a defence..
Surely an expert in the subject should have a working knowledge of such a common law.
Would we accept it from any other professional
donkmeister said:
As per the article, the word "bks" was the only thing they were made to remove.
As with all matters that oppress free speech, any outcome will always putting the rights of some people above the rights of others. At what point do you draw the line though? Should someone taking offence be sufficient cause to oppress speech, or should it cause (or be likely to cause) demonstrable harm somehow?
Now ,in cases of anti social behaviour ,e.g. in housing matters, one thing still stand out, as per a conversation I had with a local Housing officer recently. It referred to a case years ago, where one family were the subject of an eviction proceedings. Council for defence tried to argue that eviction on anti social grounds was against their human rights, in that the rights of one family to cause offence to the the majority contravened the rights of the one family over those of the majority. In the case I was involved in, the judge sided with the majority. But Housing officer tells me that this is still something that rears it's head. ks" was the only thing they were made to remove.As with all matters that oppress free speech, any outcome will always putting the rights of some people above the rights of others. At what point do you draw the line though? Should someone taking offence be sufficient cause to oppress speech, or should it cause (or be likely to cause) demonstrable harm somehow?
The Pimlico Plumbers bloke had a planning beef about his BtoB sign, but no police hassle -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/05/m...
Note passing reference to the creator of Rumpole, John Mortimer QC, who did a lot of free speech cases.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/05/m...
Note passing reference to the creator of Rumpole, John Mortimer QC, who did a lot of free speech cases.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th November 01:15
Fatball said:
The cop was way over the top but then so is the OP wanting him fired and prosecuted. Shows that it’s easily done.
We are entitled to expect good judgement from cops; this one unnecessarily endangered himself and others, and pretended to have legal power to get his own way, thus is not fit for the position, and has acted illegally.bluezedd said:
I would have liked to remain in the EU, and I'm not offended by words like that, but the word choice instantly makes me think they're a bit thick.
I am certainly not offended by the word, perhaps by the arrogance behind the expression, but the fact that I (or the cop, or anyone else) may dislike a viewpoint, does not mean that it may not be expressed. Of course the words makes them seem a bit thick; they form a Liberal Delusional Party slogan, and they are anti Brexit. 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff