Rowan Atkinson

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

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

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

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.

Yes, absent.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Oops

Thanks, absent

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.

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.

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?

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?