Rowan Atkinson

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

Thanks, Bags...I enjoyed that.

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

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.

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

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?

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

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

I wrote Claus not cloud!

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