Teenager fined £80 for swear word

Anthony Butcher · 22-02-2006, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernTory

Don't understand why Police Officers have/should have discretion? Take a look here for a start: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect09.htm

I have no problem with police officers having discretion, I just don't see how swearing is a crime. If no one is complaining about it, then what purpose is served, and how does it constitute anti-social behaviour.

We are totally in the realms of thought police here. It's ridiculous.

How many people in Britain believe that swearing is, or should be, a criminal offence?

Westcountryman · 23-02-2006, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernTory

Don't understand why Police Officers have/should have discretion? Take a look here for a start: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect09.htm

I have no problem with police officers having discretion, I just don't see how swearing is a crime. If no one is complaining about it, then what purpose is served, and how does it constitute anti-social behaviour.

We are totally in the realms of thought police here. It's ridiculous.

How many people in Britain believe that swearing is, or should be, a criminal offence?

So you really wouldn't care if some gobshite was mouthing off in a public place 'F'ing and blinding while you were taking your small children out and about?

Swearing has its place, yes, but I for one wouldn't want my children exposed to such language by some teenager who can't express themselves in a more civilised manner.

Tom Collier · 23-02-2006, 12:45 AM

Hate to say it, but I am siding with a Tory here :wink:

The presense of the police ceased to make it a "private conversation" and if warning was given maybe fair enough. There might be an argument though that police were harrassing, intimidating, bullying etc. This would depend on the facts.

The police do not have to receive a complaint to act.

The police are part people in that they are "civil" and not operating under a different jurisdiction, although also employees of the state with different powers of arrest.

The police have a duty to uphold the peace as well as the law so can use discretion. Whether this is well used (I`m thinking of the cartoon protests) is always debateable.

The speeding camara point is interesting as speeding is not necessarily strict liability, but swearing isn`t like dropping litter. And as MT says a speeding camara is simply a tool of law enforcement. Allegedly!

Tom Collier · 23-02-2006, 12:51 AM

MT wrote:

Quote:

but I for one wouldn't want

Bluddy hell are you John Major? :shock: I think we should be told!

mkpdavies · 23-02-2006, 07:06 AM

Can I have a list of naughty swear words, that I am not aloud to say out loud then please.

I don't like the word excrement either, how do I go about adding that to the offensive word list?

Platoniuos · 23-02-2006, 10:20 AM

I wonder what would happen if someone fell over and hurt themselves badly in a policeman's presence and because of this used a barrage of colourful language, would it be a trip to the police station immediatley after the hospital!?

Westcountryman · 23-02-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platoniuos

I wonder what would happen if someone fell over and hurt themselves badly in a policeman's presence and because of this used a barrage of colourful language, would it be a trip to the police station immediatley after the hospital!?

In C-Steams ideal policing world, yes, but not likely under the current situation. Instead, I would bank that the PC would apply first aid, radio for an ambulance and wish you well.

Quote:

Can I have a list of naughty swear words, that I am not aloud to say out loud then please.

I don't like the word excrement either, how do I go about adding that to the offensive word list?

There is no 'list' per se.

The requirement is:

Quote:

Section :5
Act :Public Order Act 1986
Subject :Harassment, Alarm Or Distress

A person is guilty of an offence if he

* uses threatening, abusive, insulting words or disorderly behaviour

OR

* displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting

within the hearing or sight of person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

May be committed in public or private unless all the persons involved are inside the same or separate dwellings.
A constable may only arrest if after a warning he engages in further offensive conduct immediately of shortly after the warning.
If racially or religiously aggravated a person is guilty under s31(1)(c) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - level 4 Fine

Of course, a lot more people are going to find 'F**K' a lot more offensive than the word excrement. I suppose you'd have no problem with people running round the streets shouting 'F***ing C**ts' all day then?

TomPhil · 24-02-2006, 12:18 AM

Ultimately if you decided not to accept a fixed penalty, it would be up to the Magistrates to decide as a matter of fact whether the language was offensive or not.

mkpdavies · 24-02-2006, 01:11 PM

Seriously. Please can someone point me to the list of forbidden words and how I can get some added to it.

C_steam · 24-02-2006, 09:32 PM

I only wish it were true. I think the problem here is how to identify the mechanism for some variance in application whilst abolutely taking 'intuition' out of the equation.

Intuition is a product of our values and beliefs, my intuitive feel for an idea can't be taught to you as your 'map' of the world is different to mine - it has to be since we are both distinct individuals. So any 'intuitive' response is based on our pre-conditioning and our feelings and the event itself - net result is that each policeman will apply the law as they feel fit at that time.

I have an issue with the whole concept of 'applying the law as they see fit'. If this is the case, then it is not a law, it is a grey boundary whose outlines are fuzzily defined by circumstance.

I think you COULD do it - but a lot of training would need to take place to get them to the conscious state required - away from intuition.

23-02-2006, 07:06 AM	#25 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,055 Party: Libertarian Party	Can I have a list of naughty swear words, that I am not aloud to say out loud then please. I don't like the word excrement either, how do I go about adding that to the offensive word list? __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

24-02-2006, 12:18 AM	#28 (permalink)
TomPhil Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Stockport Posts: 498 Party: UKIP	Ultimately if you decided not to accept a fixed penalty, it would be up to the Magistrates to decide as a matter of fact whether the language was offensive or not. __________________ "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." In Labour we trusted and now we are busted... again. It's the economy, stupid.

24-02-2006, 01:11 PM	#29 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,055 Party: Libertarian Party	Seriously. Please can someone point me to the list of forbidden words and how I can get some added to it. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

23-02-2006, 12:45 AM	#23 (permalink)
Tom Collier Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 359	Hate to say it, but I am siding with a Tory here :wink: The presense of the police ceased to make it a "private conversation" and if warning was given maybe fair enough. There might be an argument though that police were harrassing, intimidating, bullying etc. This would depend on the facts. The police do not have to receive a complaint to act. The police are part people in that they are "civil" and not operating under a different jurisdiction, although also employees of the state with different powers of arrest. The police have a duty to uphold the peace as well as the law so can use discretion. Whether this is well used (I`m thinking of the cartoon protests) is always debateable. The speeding camara point is interesting as speeding is not necessarily strict liability, but swearing isn`t like dropping litter. And as MT says a speeding camara is simply a tool of law enforcement. Allegedly!

23-02-2006, 10:20 AM	#26 (permalink)
Platoniuos Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South East Posts: 17	I wonder what would happen if someone fell over and hurt themselves badly in a policeman's presence and because of this used a barrage of colourful language, would it be a trip to the police station immediatley after the hospital!?

24-02-2006, 09:32 PM	#30 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,788	I only wish it were true. I think the problem here is how to identify the mechanism for some variance in application whilst abolutely taking 'intuition' out of the equation. Intuition is a product of our values and beliefs, my intuitive feel for an idea can't be taught to you as your 'map' of the world is different to mine - it has to be since we are both distinct individuals. So any 'intuitive' response is based on our pre-conditioning and our feelings and the event itself - net result is that each policeman will apply the law as they feel fit at that time. I have an issue with the whole concept of 'applying the law as they see fit'. If this is the case, then it is not a law, it is a grey boundary whose outlines are fuzzily defined by circumstance. I think you COULD do it - but a lot of training would need to take place to get them to the conscious state required - away from intuition.