Rowan Atkinson

By the way - I should have said that I can't be doing with everything going overly politically correct all the time and a bit of sarcasm etc is fine too - but surely that's not what the law is actually about?

He's a prat on this subject. I've never understood why his "intellect" is so lauded. He clearly doesn't understand some quite basic ideas that an intelligent man would unspderstand. Anyway, who defines what counts as insulting words or behaviour? Him? The Taliban?

Bags The fact that different people vary widely in their definitions of offensive and insulting is, I think, the reason why Rowan Atkinson wants to change the law. There have been some very silly arrests under this law. Of course, gratuitous insults are uncalled for but I agree with Rowan Atkinson that enshrining protectio from insult and offense in law is using a steam roller to crack a nut.

Trying not to sound like a 'grumpy pensioner' I feel that in today's society there is a distinct lack of respect and manners. On public transport and other public places it is an assault to the ears to hear swearing and other profanities without relaxing existing laws which would encourage this type of behaviour. I am suprised at Rowan Atkinson although I understand what is reasoning is but I feel it would be a step too far.

HAHa! and Oh dear, I,ve done it again!!! got him and the other Rowan mixed up! [embarassmenttastic]

Oops

Thanks, absent

Some of the first part of Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, dealing with threats and disorderly behaviour, seems perfectly reasonable and I don't think anyone is suggesting changing that. However, definitions of "abusive or insulting words" whether spoken or written will vary. That they become criminal if they are "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby" seems completely unreasonable, especially as there is no need to prove that someone actually was harassed, alarmed or distressed. Rudeness is not nice, but I don't think it should be a criminal offence.

The two most notorious arrests under Section 5 are that of a teenager outside Scientology Headquarters bearing a placard describing scientology as a cult and a student who called a policeman's horse gay. Charges were late dropped, but what a waste of time.

Section 5 was also used at a Hizb ut-Tahrir rally that was calling for Jews, apostates, gays and adulterous women to be killed. The people arrested under the Act were gay rights protesters outside protesting against incitement to murder.

This Act is not working properly and should be changed.

bagshow can you get those two muddled! Apart from the fact they're both twerps, they have nowt in common?

I love it Bags. Do you mean the one with the beard?

Must be the twerp factor, jeni. I hear/read the name Rowan associated with famous and think "twerp" and jump in with both feet. DH gets them mixed up too in spite of liking Mr Bean.

Still ning.

Yes, absent.

Digression alert- when we went to Canterbury cathedral in the summer, we discovered one could buy a c*******s decoration depicting a bearded archbishop or Canterbury.

Are you sure it wasn't Father Christmas, kitty?

They both have beards but only one of them wears a pointy hat and carries a big stick.

Hang on! They do both wear the same hat! St. Cloud was bishop of ? Smyrna so deserves a mitre!

Rowan Atkinson, not Santa! As far as I know RA doesn't habitually wear vestments. Except when he's acting the part of an idiot vicar.

My grandmother had an old Christmas ornament of Father C, in which he was dressed in white robes and wore a mitre.

I wrote Claus not cloud!

If it was Santa he didn't look very jolly.

I agree, Absent, there is a balance about what is acceptible and in the
cases of first 2 you quote, to prosecute was silly.
Free speech is important, but naturally has to be balanced against very
provocative and destructive talk which can harm and cause fanaticism.

Wise words wurzel, just as there is no free lunch, there is no free speech. However, it is important that we make speech (and the written word) as free as possible while at the same time protecting against incitement to violence and aggressive prejudice. Actually, thinking about it, isn't prejudice always aggressive, but I guess you have some idea of what I mean.

I seem to remember that when the Miriam O'Reilly case was on, he argued that artistic freedom should mean that those producing tv programs etc should be free to discriminate against older women, or by definition, those of 'unsuitable' races, or accents or whatever.

I don't know who Miriam Reilly is. However, the issue here is not discrimination but causing offence.

She was the presenter who sued the BBC when she was replaced on a televsion program because of her age.

The current issue seems quite clear to me and is summed up well by Lord Dear, former chief constable of West Midlands Police, and former shadow home secretary David Davis.
Quoting from the article linked in the OP (my bold):
Mr Davis said: "The simple truth is that in a free society, there is no right not to be offended. For centuries, freedom of speech has been a vital part of British life, and repealing this law will reinstate that right."

What is offensive, or potentially offensive, to one person may not be so to someone else. For instance, on a very mild level, some gransnetters have said they object to being called 'dear' because, presumably, in some way they find it offensively patronising. Some others don't find being called 'dear' in the least offensive and in fact rather like it. If one just extends that range of reactions to other, more forceful expressions, or when there is talk on subjects where people have strong feelings (religion, politics, etc) it's easy to see how muddled things could quickly become.

Censorship is always dangerous. Preventing discrimination is another issue altogether.