The Law is an Ass

[louisiana]

Back to the Public Order Act:

***

A Leicestershire trader has been fined for displaying shirts bearing a rude slogan about the prime minister.

Tony Wright, 60, from Burton Lazars, was told the shirts could cause alarm or even distress.

He was caught selling them at the Royal Norfolk Show and told to take down his stand. The shirts have the slogan "B******* to Blair" emblazoned on them.

He said he would challenge the ?80 fixed penalty the police gave him for causing harassment, alarm and distress.

***

[ianr]

This one's presumably the other of the two stallholders. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682521.ece

[Huguenot]

All seems pretty reasonable to me. We have laws about offensive language in public that apply equally to drunks in front of Co-op as they do to stallholders at family events. We may regret it if we repeal them.

I'm guessing this is another bullshit story that will reveal that the stallholders had several polite requests to remove the items, played some stupid games thinking they could get one over the police, and then got their just deserts.

The only failure in the law is the inability to challenge FCUK, but I can see that we'd get ourselves in trouble if we started to prosecute people who were sporting emblems that were sort of a bit like swear words.

[pk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12634907

[DaveR]

s.5 Public Order Act is a provision that if applied properly is OK, but in my experience is often used by the police to justify an arrest inappropriately, and reasonably often pursued to prosecution when it really shouldn't be. To be guilty the behaviour has to cause 'alarm or distress' - not merely offence. The fine for the T shirt guy is IMHO unlawful and contrary to ECHR (and just stupid).

It's also right that it is used completely inconsistently - most frequently when people challenge police authority but haven't committed any obvious other offence.

A long time ago I defended a guy charged with s.5 for calling a police officer a c***. The officer admitted that this wasn't an unusual occurrence. Acquitted.

[Huguenot]

So are you saying that this statement - "charged with using threatening, abusive or insulting words with intent to cause harassment alarm or distress" - is factually incorrect?

Chants and gestures that are aimed to provoke by referencing or ridiculing the deaths of others is clearly abusive and insulting, is clearly intended to harass and cause distress.

The example of the police is completely irrelevant. Manchester Untied fans and the families of the dead are not employed and trained for a job that regularly comes into conflict with the public. They are entitled to be protected from the malicious behaviour of others.

I've got no doubt this law is applied inconsistently, but that is no defence either.

BTW, I don't think it's okay for people to call policemen c***s either. You didn't deny this, you just claimed the policemen should get used to it. You're obviously proud of this sleight of hand, in a way that is beyond your legal responsibility. What a shame that people with these beliefs should have an influence on the law in the UK.

[Loz]

Still eight weeks jail, suspended, seems rather OTT for the 'crime'.

[DaveR]

"BTW, I don't think it's okay for people to call policemen c***s either. You didn't deny this, you just claimed the policemen should get used to it. You're obviously proud of this sleight of hand, in a way that is beyond your legal responsibility. What a shame that people with these beliefs should have an influence on the law in the UK"

Wrong on all counts. The issue is not whether it's "OK" but whether it's a crime, and in particular whether in that case it was a crime. You clearly know f*** all about the responsibility in this situation so why pontificate as if you do? And the outcome of a trial has no influence on the law in the UK - it just determines whether someone is convicted or not.

As for football fans vs police, if your point is that they are not the same, well done. However, the point is that context is all in determining whether conduct is likely to cause harassment alarm and distress - as was famously observed by a very eminent judge, something may be an actionable nuisance if it happens in Grosvenor Square, but not in Smithfield Market.

There is an ass here, H, and (yet again( it's you.

[Huguenot]

I'm not arguing about a point of law. I'm pointing out that it is disappointing that you personally, as an educated and bright adult, seem to think it's okay to call policemen c***s.

For the esteemed and capable lawyer that you so clearly are, it consequently seems somewhat disappointing that the pinnacle of your achievement is to now start calling me names?

Your clients would be both proud and impressed I'm sure. Their girlfriends must swoon at your presence.

[DaveR]

"I'm not arguing about a point of law. I'm pointing out that it is disappointing that you personally, as an educated and bright adult, seem to think it's okay to call policemen c***s.

For the esteemed and capable lawyer that you so clearly are, it consequently seems somewhat disappointing that the pinnacle of your achievement is to now start calling me names?

Your clients would be both proud and impressed I'm sure. Their girlfriends must swoon at your presence."

At the risk of descending into more name-calling (by default), this is just too juvenile to require a response.