Rowan Atkinson

Oh, I know nothing about that. Did she win?

Yes she won; briefly went back to the BBC to work on Crimewatch Roadshow but subsequently stopped working for the BBC to concentrate on her charity, Women's Equality Network. Seems that bosses at the BBC are now keen to have her back and Harriet Harman asked her to head a Labour Party commission on older women. I wonder (cynically) if she would have attracted so much attention had she never been sacked from Countryfile.
(info from Wiki, as usual)

Can someone please clarify this? What exactly is Rowan saying?

If he thinks the 'anti-insult' part of the law should be dispensed with, then I agree whole-heartedly. And he is certainly no dafter than the pillock who draw up the legislation.

Remember the boy who was arrested for a placard saying that Scientology was a cult? Or the lad who told a mounted policeman his horse was gay?
Ridiculous, but both were arrested under that law.

Atkinson is objecting, as I think you are, feetle, to the anti-insult bit of the law which seems to mean that if someone says "those words offend me", then whoever said the words can be arrested on some trumped up, stupid charge. Complete waste of police time and taxpayers' money.

feetlebaum Section 5 of the POA 1986 states that a person is guilty of a criminal offence if he:
a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour
or
b) displays any writing, sign or 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.

Threats and disorder are already covered by other laws. The problem is criminalising insults and offence even if no one has been caused "harassment, alarm or distress". That is what Rowan Atkinson (and quite a lot of other people) wants to change.

And a judge recently said that he didn't think the police would be offended by bad language. So now swearing at a police officer, like Andrew Mitchell is alleged to have done, is OK.

Presumably that was just a judge's opinion rather than a formal judgement. Presumably too, there is no specific definition of "bad language", although there is probably a consensus about some words. Section 5 covers a much wider range of language. Calling someone a fat fool, for example, could be treated as a criminal offence rather than simply a rude remark under Section 5.

Don't know, absent but here's the link www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8902770/Swearing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html

Lilygran thanks for the link. Of course the f-word is widely used almost as a kind of filler in sentences these days. "What the f**k have you done with your f*****g hair, you f**k wit?" It is so automatic to include it in everything said that it seems many people are not even aware that they are doing so and are certainly not aware that some other people find such gratuitous use offensive.

The man being searched (as in your link) didn't appear to swear at the police, as in "f**k you" or "f**k off". Rather he swore in the same sort of general way as I mentioned above. "I already f*****g told you."

Side tracking even further, I have been deeply puzzled by this whole recent issue about racism in football. It seems that if one player calls another one "a black c**t", the offensive term is black, even though the player is black. No one seemed to bat an eyelid about the other word. (I hasten to add that I have no time for racism.)

Re your third para., absent, I suspect it is the drawing attention to skin colour, as if it was relevant, that is considered racist, not the word. I think if someone called me a white c**t it would be the word white that would grab my attention, because why use it except to be racist when you're using rude words anyway?

Although, racist is the wrong word of course. It should be skinnist.

Bags You are, of course, right about the use of the word black in the context of the footballer's insult. However, I am simply amazed that no one at all seemed to think that there was anything unpleasant about the rest of the comment. In fact, it seemed to be regarded as perfectly acceptable.

Rowan Atkinson on free speech. This youtube video of a speech is pertinent and bang on.

Thanks, Bags...I enjoyed that.

More power to your elbow Rowan. What a well presented argument against Section 5.