Sheep must never, never swear at the wolves.
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
- Status
Fosbery
Member
There's no law against swearing per se, but if you start hurling abuse at people in public you can be arrested for a number of things such as causing a breach of the peace. Being abusive towards a police officer will get you arrested for an hour or two, but it's not a crime I don't think. This must be some local by-law though I'm not sure how it could possibly apply to her if she was on her own property. Still, a terrible state of affairs. I feel like a rat on a sinking ship..full of really ugly smelly stupid rats who keep jumping into the water and knawing holes in the woodwork.
BobTheTomato
Member
The truly scary thing about this article is that the woman was fined for using speech. It not like she went on a 5 minute profanity laced tirade. This seems to be in style for the EU and other "progressive" nations. They are attempting to construct so many vauge and generalized hate speech laws that pretty soon looking at someone crosseyed will get you thrown in jail. Which gets me thinking, will we be suprised in another 5 years if something like this would get this woman locked up for a few days? Just my $0.02 on how bastardized the system is getting over there.......wait they can read this in Europe.....I hope I dont get fined......
History Prof
Member
In the main context of the OP, I agree that it is not quite applicable. I was thinking more in terms of how the UK Bobbies dealt with the "yobs" (Hey you UK folks, is that how y'all refer to your juvenile delinquents?) than how they dealt with the "civilians." I was also thinking in terms of how long it will be before welfare voters outnumber the productive voters in the USA. Heaven forbid that the productive members of society be allowed to defend themselves, even with harsh language. "Where are we going, and what are we doing in this handbasket?"
As to why we cannot use "F" here, I agree totally with GunnySkox (and even teach it that way in my PoliSci class). This is Oleg's house. We abide by Oleg's rules.
jklinstein
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 75
It sounds like only the Police are authorized to use profanity in England. 
Pilgrim
Member
This is fascinating. I just read an article where a lieutenant on the Naval Academy staff successfully fought off Article 15 punishment by the superintendent, a flag officer. He used profanity in front of a female and the female complained. The admiral wanted to make the Article 15 a 'public flogging' by holding the hearing in front of the entire Academy staff. The lieutenant refused and asked for a trial by court martial.
The case was eventually kicked upstairs to a more senior admiral who chose to issue a non-punitive letter of caution to the lieutenant. Case closed, after two years of legal wrangling between the Navy and the lieutenant's counsel.
So, while this is all going on, midshipmen are encouraged to swear and cuss about a person they personally know little about. I'm pretty sure all the midshipmen in the Naval Academy weren't born when Jane Fonda drew the ire and disgust of Vietnam era servicemen.
What a paradox.
Pilgrim
1911 guy
Member
England has been in decline.
Since A.D. 1066. A burgeoning society was stamped out, it's culture and history forgotten. The government of the U.K. has always been oppressive of the English people. Sometimes it's just more blatant than others.
Since A.D. 1066. A burgeoning society was stamped out, it's culture and history forgotten. The government of the U.K. has always been oppressive of the English people. Sometimes it's just more blatant than others.
rbernie
Contributing Member
"I am the only one in this room professional enough to use the EffBomb."
Fosbery
Member
I dunno, maybe I'm an optimist but amongst the non-criminal elements of the up and coming generation I see a lot of sentiment very much against the pansy, what Americans would call 'liberal' society will live in and real support for a hard line, libertarian one with the RKBA. I think a lot of them havn't really latched onto RKBA as a real political idea (it just dosn't exist in UK politics, only silly old farts like me recognise it as a phrase) but if you ask them, they'll say yes.
On the other hand, in a country with low unemployment and high wages, there may not be any real drive to force change and we'll slip quietly into a complete dictatorship.
On the other hand, in a country with low unemployment and high wages, there may not be any real drive to force change and we'll slip quietly into a complete dictatorship.
That's the problem, when people accept, and are either ok with or unwilling to significantly oppose, illegal actions by their governemnt.
No offense intended to you Fosbery, and I hope that is true, the growing lack of compassion for those who lack the will to help themselves.
Fosbery
Member
Well, I think it is actually legal to arrest someone like that. For instance, if someone is drunk and disorderly (not a crime AFAIK) the police can send the home with a friend or take them in until they sober up. In situations like that I suppose it's a good thing, but for swearing at a police officer, well that's not on. Unfortunately, I don't make the laws 
jamz
Member
Well, that's just not cricket, old boy.
.22-250
Member
Hi guys, Donna Appleyard was probably arrested under the Public Order Act 1986, come to think of it there was a man arrested over here a while ago for wearing a t- shirt with the words `bollocks to Blair` on it, he was fined also. What a lovely country we live in...not!
Public Order Act 1986
1986 CHAPTER 64
An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes
[7th November 1986
]
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–
[4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]
[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]
NOTES
Amendment
Inserted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 154.
5 Harassment, alarm or distress
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a) he engages in offensive conduct which [a] constable warns him to stop, and
(b) he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
(5) In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
NOTES
Initial Commencement
To be appointed
To be appointed: see s 41(1).
Appointment
Appointment: 1 April 1987: see SI 1987/198, art 2, Schedule.
Amendment
Sub-s (4): word in square brackets in para (a) substituted by the Public Order (Amendment) Act 1996, s 1.
6 Mental element: miscellaneous
(1) A person is guilty of riot only if he intends to use violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent.
(2) A person is guilty of violent disorder or affray only if he intends to use or threaten violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence under section 4 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting.
(4) A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly.
(5) For the purposes of this section a person whose awareness is impaired by intoxication shall be taken to be aware of that of which he would be aware if not intoxicated, unless he shows either that his intoxication was not self-induced or that it was caused solely by the taking or administration of a substance in the course of medical treatment.
(6) In subsection (5) “intoxication” means any intoxication, whether caused by drink, drugs or other means, or by a combination of means.
(7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the determination for the purposes of riot or violent disorder of the number of persons who use or threaten violence.
Public Order Act 1986
1986 CHAPTER 64
An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes
[7th November 1986
]
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–
[4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress]
[(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]
NOTES
Amendment
Inserted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 154.
5 Harassment, alarm or distress
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a) he engages in offensive conduct which [a] constable warns him to stop, and
(b) he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
(5) In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
NOTES
Initial Commencement
To be appointed
To be appointed: see s 41(1).
Appointment
Appointment: 1 April 1987: see SI 1987/198, art 2, Schedule.
Amendment
Sub-s (4): word in square brackets in para (a) substituted by the Public Order (Amendment) Act 1996, s 1.
6 Mental element: miscellaneous
(1) A person is guilty of riot only if he intends to use violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent.
(2) A person is guilty of violent disorder or affray only if he intends to use or threaten violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence under section 4 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting.
(4) A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly.
(5) For the purposes of this section a person whose awareness is impaired by intoxication shall be taken to be aware of that of which he would be aware if not intoxicated, unless he shows either that his intoxication was not self-induced or that it was caused solely by the taking or administration of a substance in the course of medical treatment.
(6) In subsection (5) “intoxication” means any intoxication, whether caused by drink, drugs or other means, or by a combination of means.
(7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the determination for the purposes of riot or violent disorder of the number of persons who use or threaten violence.
American By Blood
Member
Perhaps Oleg's English cousin Nigel Volk can start a forum called Disarmed Impolite Society...
Fosbery
Member
See, this is an example of 'use your common sense' law beng used in a stupid way. A hundred years ago, that law would have been used against people actively setting out to hound people. For instance, a gang of people following a woman around and making sexist comments and jokes. These people would have been arrested and dealt with and quite rightly so. But these days the real trouble makers are ignores, whilst honest folk who happen to fall foul of the law are persecuted.
What ever happened to discretion and common sense? It even says in the law, it is a defence if you were acting 'reasonably' which this lady clearly was.
What ever happened to discretion and common sense? It even says in the law, it is a defence if you were acting 'reasonably' which this lady clearly was.
Zundfolge
Member
I agree, it looks more like a problem of selective enforcement than bad law.
So whats the deal? Are the bobbies all afraid of children? Is there a concerted effort to inconvenience the law abiding?
She was fined for shouting expletives at someone ... yet the children she complained about apparently did the exact same thing and the police did nothing.
I don't get it.
.22-250
Member
What a good idea ABB, the way this country is going the forum would probably be full in no time. I`ll go around and kick everyone i see whilst wearing steel toe-capped boots, just to be impolite of course.
Fosbury, there is no such thing as common sense in this place any more, especially when it comes to dealing with the local friendly police force, perhaps that should be police farce. The only thing that the police constables have to do now is appease their politically correct masters.
Nigel.
Fosbury, there is no such thing as common sense in this place any more, especially when it comes to dealing with the local friendly police force, perhaps that should be police farce. The only thing that the police constables have to do now is appease their politically correct masters.
Nigel.
Fosbery
Member
Imagine you're a policeman, you get a phonecall from some old woman "blah blah blah, kids walked on my lawn, blah blah blah, swore at me". Big deal, you don't care you've got murders to not solve and dohnuts to eat. She'll call for a while then give in and put up with it.
Then you get a call from a hysterical mother saying her darling angel of a daughter, just 13 years old and innocent to the world has been abused by some horrible old woman who made her cry for no reason. Ok so you still don't really care, but mothers have a way of sueing you for all your worth, for getting you sacked, for getting you god aweful headlines etc etc. So you get up and arrest the evil old lady.
There's many reasons they're so rubbish. Firstly, honest, law abiding sensible people don't sue the police for every little thing. Criminals on the other hand, do. So the policemen have a vested interest in not annoying criminals. Also, they just...I dunno, their priorities are wrong. As someone said in another topic, call 999 and say "a man is breaking into my house" and the police might just pop round in a week's time to take a statement that will never get read. Call up and say "I just shot a burglar" and half a dozen SWAT teams will be outside your house in seconds.
Then you get a call from a hysterical mother saying her darling angel of a daughter, just 13 years old and innocent to the world has been abused by some horrible old woman who made her cry for no reason. Ok so you still don't really care, but mothers have a way of sueing you for all your worth, for getting you sacked, for getting you god aweful headlines etc etc. So you get up and arrest the evil old lady.
There's many reasons they're so rubbish. Firstly, honest, law abiding sensible people don't sue the police for every little thing. Criminals on the other hand, do. So the policemen have a vested interest in not annoying criminals. Also, they just...I dunno, their priorities are wrong. As someone said in another topic, call 999 and say "a man is breaking into my house" and the police might just pop round in a week's time to take a statement that will never get read. Call up and say "I just shot a burglar" and half a dozen SWAT teams will be outside your house in seconds.
ProguninTN
Member
England
and to think English common-law helped shape our legal system ?
ProguninTN
and to think English common-law helped shape our legal system ?
ProguninTN
Geronimo45
Member
If I'm in a British movie theater and I hear an actor using the f-word, can I get them fined for abusive speech?
Don't take the law into your own hands? I don't think even the French have it this bad.
Don't take the law into your own hands? I don't think even the French have it this bad.
GuyWithQuestions
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 451
Well didn't the article say they all kept on contacting law enforcement over and over again and the police did nothing? So that doesn't make sense? Also, wasn't the amount of force that she used less than the amount of force that they were unlawfully using in order to stop or at least slow down their unlawful use of force (lesser of the two evils)? Since the police couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it, isn't it reasonable to believe that the only way to stop it was for them to do something? But then, I guess American law doesn't apply over there.
To all of our brave brethren trapped behind the taffeta curtain in the UK I say; Delta airlines has one way tickets from Gatwick to JFK for only $99 US. Get over here and apply for political asylum!
http://www.delta.com/planning_reservations/deals_offers/fare_sales/jfk_london/index.jsp
http://www.delta.com/planning_reservations/deals_offers/fare_sales/jfk_london/index.jsp
- Status