This is daft:
POLICE issued two stallholders at a farming show with £80 fines for displaying T-shirts bearing the slogan “Bollocks to Blair”. Officers questioned staff on two stands at the Royal Norfolk Show after receiving a complaint, subsequently issuing two fixed-penalty notices of £80 for the offending garments.
But, it is entirely legal, given the state of the law these days. Someone says something is offensive, and if they say it is offensive it is offensive, because offensive is whatever offends anybody. Then, once the complaint is made, the police are legally obliged to inflict over-the-top and ridiculous summary justice.
Last night Norfolk police defended the action. A spokesman said: “Officers from Norfolk Constabulary issued two fixed penalty notices, each with a value of £80, at the Royal Norfolk Show in relation to two trade stands displaying T-shirts emblazoned with offensive language. The notices were issued under Section 5 of the Public Order Act as the language was deemed to cause harassment, distress or alarm at an event, where a cross section of people were present including families and young children who may have found the displays offensive. Police did receive a complaint from a member of the public.
Quite so.
I reckon that a creative application of this law could render illegal just about any damn thing anybody took against, definitely including the Police, Tony Blair, etc. Has Tony Blair never used language that was “deemed to cause harassment, distress or alarm at an event”? Selling the Koran would definitely be illegal, provided only that the Police received the complaint about it through the proper channels.
My guess is that Police morale is now so low that a lot of them are now in Good Soldier Schweik mode, i.e. doing every stupid thing that the law says they must, just to show everyone how ridiculous the law now often is.
My late father, who was a rather distinguished lawyer, used to tell us about a bloke who sat in Whitehall somewhere looking at all new laws that they were threatening to pass, pointing out inconsistencies and collisions with other laws, and unintended but possible consequences, and then deftly rewriting all the laws so that they achieved only what they were intended to achieve, and stopped only what they were supposed to stop. (He himself, apparently, had no firm opinions about what the law should do, other than what the people passing it said they wanted it to do.) Then he died, and they were never able to replace him. That must have been, if I remember it rightly, round about forty or fifty years ago. And that, my dad reckoned, was when, legally speaking, the rot set in.
So there is no need for the words “Bollocks to”, then?
Yes, the response is obvious… deluge the police with complaints over ANYTHING that we find offensive, no matter how absurd, and demand they prosecute. Perhaps the more legally trained amongst the Samizdatistas and commentariat might like to come up with a plausible list of things we can complain about that we can force the police to procesute for until this ties up both the courts and police completely and utterly.
Anyone from Yorkshire willing to travel to Labour conference and take offence at Red Rose symbol?
What is fascinating is that Met officers chose not to enforce the same law at the infamous “Kill those who offend Islam” march in London. But they did caution someone who tried to counter-protest.
From Collins English Dictonary and Thesausus, reprinted 2006: Bollocks, 1. Another word for testicles; 2. nonsense, rubbish; 3. an exclamation of annoyance or disbelief.
Sounds like there might be a good defence here. I say let the police bring on their offended witnesses.
Best regards
Well this has to be appealed.
Where is the fighting fund for these two
like there was for that charming Muslim girl
who’s human rights were curtailed because she was not allowed to attend school in a sack.
Perhaps Galloways Respect party would like to contribute some of their oil money to this good cause as well. Surely the sentiments expressed are something they would heartily agree with.
Pity about that bloke dying Brian. I suspected something like that had happened soon after I graduated in the early 70’s.
So he was the last “coach and horses” man was he. The guy that scrutinised bills for unintended consquences and went “excuse me but you can drive a coach and ……..
I suspect anyone who complains that he or she is offended by the Koran is likely to be hauled up by another law, something about Hate Speech. Complaining about any demonstration of Christianity should be OK though.
It’s a good job that the police have done such a good job clearing up violent crime in this country that they have the spare time to do things like this, isn’t it?
How about substituting Blithering Blair.
It’s much less likely to cause offense in the same way, alliterates nicely, has an old-fashioned charm, and other intersting attributes.
Anyone for a bulk order?
Best regards
Why is it that nothing surprizes me any more?
Perhaps the more legally trained amongst the Samizdatistas and commentariat might like to come up with a plausible list of things we can complain about that we can force the police to procesute for until this ties up both the courts and police completely and utterly.
No can do. The police have no general duty to act on a complaint, and the powers they receive are generally coupled with wholesale discretion as to their use. When offences are as broadly drawn as they are in much that emanates from the Home Office that discretion cannot but be prosecuted politically.
We are in fact getting to the stage where the rule of law ceases to exist because there is almost nothing in life beyond the discretionary power of officials (including, but not limited to, the police). Anything at all may result in punishment – if the subject belongs to the compliant section of society.
A complaint from a member of the public about an anti-New Labour T-shirt occurring at the time of Milliband’s visit? Touch of the Potempkin village syndrome, one suspects.
Readers will recall that last year it was only wearing such shirts that was punished.
Guess I’m going to be in real trouble for the iron on print t-shirt that I am currently drawing up with Blair’s face viewed through a rifle scope and the caption “somebody please”………
So, we’ve gone from Cradle of Filth’s ‘Jesus Is A Cunt’ t-shirt being banned due to it being deemed offensive to political protest being deemed offensive.
Next time I see the Labour Party using a red rose, I think I may complain as its offensive to me as I’m English with Lancastrian roots, so its a symbol with which I identify being perverted by a political party whose ideology I find dehumanising and offensive.
This has yet to go to court though surely? My understanding is that you pay the fine OR have your day in court. Since the police cannot be the prosecutors and at the same time the ‘offended’ party, they will need to produce this supposed complainant (is that a word?) and they can then explain their incredibly thin skins to a court. Hopefully, this will then be thrown out.
they will need to produce this supposed complainant (is that a word?)
Not necessarily. The modern Home Office operates in accordance with the principles of the ancient Welsh martial art of LLap Goch (as explained in Monty Python’s papperbok): the most effective form of defence is a sudden and unexpected attack before your assailant has even noticed your presence.
Offences involving actual victims, mens rea and the like are old hat. Disorderly conduct, contrary to s5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for which I’m presuming this penalty notice is being issued (the power to issue penalties is Blair, 2001), doesn’t require anyone actually to be offended for the offence to be made out, nor any intention to offend.
You just need a constable to say there were people present and they could have been caused distress.
The note on police-law.co.uk says:
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
So if the T-shirt had been being sold by a non-Christian, non-Anglicised-Scottish person, and in the opinion of the officer (or someone else) Blair was being insulted for his sleeve-worn religion or his national origin, then £80 would look mild….
Alas Robert you must have learnt your law back when I did, when though convoluted, was reasonably sane.
I think you may find that the “complainant” is never heard of again. Certainly will not be in court to give evidence as to the thickness of skin or indeed cerebal cortex they may possess.
A Compaint Has Been Made—- That’s all it takes. Like everybody else the Police want an easy life so they roll over on easy targets like these.
They will take motorists, shopkeepers etc etc but moving targets like muggers and burglers, they would rather ignore.
I repeat this has to go to Appeal.
Ah but with this Govt you never know, they may have abolished that too!
The police are full of shit on this one.
When “Never Mind the Bollocks” was released by the Sex Pistols, Virgin Records were sued for the alleged obscenity. They were defended by John Mortimer, who was able to demonstrate that “bollocks” was a well established English word, and not obscene. Case dismissed.
So that’s the case law on the subject, and our political police can stick it their pipes and (not) smoke it.
I thought we’d resolved this in 1977, when Never Mind The Bollocks was proven to mean Never Mind The Nonsense. Is Bollocks To Blair a no-no because it contravenes grammar / correct usage? Would Blair Talks Bollocks be acceptable?
Hear hear. Leaving aside the fact that it’s unimaginable that anyone at the Norfolk Show would quibble with the sentiment ‘Bollocks to Blair’, the mistake made by the stallholders was in not refusing the notices, not telling the police that their action was illegal (Bill of Rights) and in not demanding their day in court. Right, I’m off to find the name and address of Norfolk’s Chief Constable. I feel another letter dripping with scorn coming on.
Is anybody else creeped out by the fact that Guy’s link is to a site called “together.gov.uk”?
Yes. Me.
This government knows nothing of freedom or individuality.
You lot really are in deep trouble, eh?
(Not that I’m smirking–I live in the People’s Paradise of Aotearoa. We’re headed the same way)
The post is correct. I was present at a lecture to new staff where I work about a year ago. They were warned about offensive language and someone did ask who decided what was offensive and what wasn’t. The new workers were told that the anyone who considered themselves offended was offended, and that they should report the behaviour immediately. This is sinister, but even more sinsister is that anyone who does complain about offensive behaviour from other staff is usually labelled a troublemaker and victimised to the extent necessary to make them realise that complaining is not the done thing. I make money from this type of farce.
The case law on this will be of no avail,it doesn’t matter if “Bollocks” means nonsense or not,all that matters is someone deemed themselves offended.
Welcome to Blairistan,you don’t even have to do anything to bee guilty.
The case law on this will be of no avail,it doesn’t matter if “Bollocks” means nonsense or not,all that matters is someone deemed themselves offended.
Not really. The Sex Pistols case is not relevant, and the view of the word “bollocks” there was a finding of fact, not of law, so it wouldn’t be a precedent even if it were.
But as I point out above, the really dangerous feature of this law is that it does not require anyone actually to claim that they are offended. It only needs the presence of people who might be caused “alarm, harassment or distress” in the judgment of the officer issuing the penalty.
But it is worse than that. The legal form of the penalty is an offer by the authorities not to prosecute if you pay it. It therefore weasels out of being contrary to the prohibitions in both the Bill of Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on punishment without fair trial. Nonetheless it can be registered and enforced as if it were a fine, if the recipient does not make an application to be tried (and thereby pay substantial amounts either way at the risk of greater punishment). In essence a penalty means you must be prepared to suffer considerable cost and inconvenience to prove (or at least assert) your innocence, because the constable issuing the penalty summarily need not in practice have the strength of case to justify a prosecution.
Whether it’s good law or not, it’s bad law. We should all consider a “Bollocks to Blair” t-shirt our uniform from now on, refuse to pay our fines and go to jail. While there, we should all spend our leisure hours working out new ways to expose this evil for what it is on our release.
The only problem with this plan is that they only have about three jail cells left to fill. If I utter the cliche “they can’t jail us all”, that may be literally true.
Does anyone know if this is going to court? If it is, I would suggest we rally as many as we can and attend the hearing, all dressed in “Never mind the bollocks” T-shirts.
Having tipped off a few reporters first, obviously. Anyone game?
“they can’t jail us all”
I thought that was raison d’etre of the Home Office these days.
Neither is the word Bolocks relevant,all that is relevant is the claim to be offended.Offence is the offence.
Well, I’m deeply offended by Che Guevara T-shirts; and, while I’m at it, those posters that have cropped up all over London calling him a “revolutionary and icon”. Where do I complain?
I’m utterly confused. I thought that the British had some kind of protection similar to the 1st amendment in the US constitution. I mean, you can be sued because something is thought to be offensive, or fired or what have you — but since when did the police have the ability to impose an extrajudicial penalty for it?
I mean, all it takes to contest a parking ticket in California (not exactly a haven for civil liberties anymore) is a letter requesting an Administrative Review. Half an hour getting the text of the statute off the internet and a stamp and you’ve got a good chance of getting it dismissed without even having to speak to anyone over the phone. And they make actual money off of parking tickets. Is “getting offended” a real money maker for British police authorities?
Again, totally baffled.
Sorry Sarah, not in the slightest. We had considerable freedom of political and religious speech at a time when nobody else in the Western world had much at all, and got idealised at the enlightenment.
The best we can do for a constitutional freedom of speech is article 10 of the European Convention:-
Note part 2, particularly the pernicious general assertion that a freedom is created in the chains of duty and responsibility.
British freedom of expression was in practice a bit less than in some other European countries because of our libel laws and our reporting restrictions and strong regulation of broadcasting and censorship of films and video games. We don’t have privacy laws (though perhaps we ought) or the extensive state control of media like some, countries though. What’s very new is open attack on political speech, per se. For example.
since when did the police have the ability to impose an extrajudicial penalty for it?
Since the Criminal Justice and Police 2001 Act went into force. Anno Antoninus 4. Penalty notices are a favourite of the Blair regime. They dispense with all that inconvenient possibility that the non-compliant might escape punishment. You can receive a penalty notice if you child is truant from school, if you break NHS regulations, if you don’t bring the right documents with you for your identity card interrogation (forthcoming). In those cases it’s not a fine, not even an alternative to criminal liability. It’s a civil penalty, so you can’t stand trial – you merely have to go to court to prove that it was wrongly imposed according to the rules.
How about “Bollocks to the Prime Minister”?
Then, if confronted, say it’s an old shirt from the Margaret Thatcher era.
Anyway, that would also mean it could be worn for ages — I don’t foresee any improvement in the Prime Ministerial timber for some time to come.
The Register: Cops spot-fine Goth £80 for upsetting weapons detector
It seems this physics graduate (a main man obviously) insulted the machine by doubting its effectiveness.
Best regards
Here’s a better T shirt for the resistanzistas:
Front:
FUCK CENSORSHIP!
Back:
FREE SPEECH IS THE SHIT!
(In American slang, the shit is a good thing, not sure if it would be understood in the UK)