Salford to ban foul language in public areas

They can't even stop people from using mobile phones on motorways [said with anger after seeing some of the driving on the A1 last week] so how are they going to implement this? Or even prove it in a court of law?? And how am I going to stop myself saying 'oh sh*t' every time I trip over my own feet when out and about .

There are already laws/bylaws to deal with bad behaviour/aggressive language etc. if needed, but not enough police officers to enforce them!

YO vegasmags - well good summary of Salford Quays who think we're all still clogs and whippets (like you and me vegas)

Salford Quays is a vibrant development with culture, art, theatre, museums alongside excellent retail and eating opportunities. I confess, my first thought on reading about the proposed ban in the MancEveningNews was FFS! in Salford, good luck enforcing that one.

I dislike the use of swearing as part of a verbally aggressive attack on someone. I dislike anyone using the C or T words (you know precisely what I man by that). I accept my views may be seen as prudish or old fashioned and I've been known to ask people/groups to tone it down a bit. Only once has the request been aggressively rather than apologetically responded to.

I'm still chortling though at the notion of the foul mouth police, wandering Salford Quays, ready to fine people on the spot when (as Jing suggests) someone trips up and says oh F, S or B .

I think I might actually advocate letting the odd f* or 'shit' out in front of kids. It might help them distinguish between the often almost lighthearted way, these words are occasionally used by perfectly respectable grown ups, as a stress reliever. Perhaps it might take the weight of it off them a bit. They might be more able to shrug it off. And, let's face it, they are inclined to howl with laughter when granny someone accidentally lets slip the odd one.

Lasting harm bags - yes, probably left me with a bad attitude to foul-mouthed yobs. Perhaps otherwise I'd be more tolerant??

Anyway off tne hear readers at GS3's school - more Biff and Charlie

If a word is foul used more than once then it's foul used once . I dislike foul language but is it against the law to use it?

My GS (11), has the strategy that if he hears a swear word from an adult, he is then entitled to repeat it! I got into trouble for using 'cock-up' which I didn't think was specially naughty! But it does keep the adults around him on their toes!

Salford Quays! The BBC will have to watch its language now!

I don't think this rule will work in reality, - but I wish it would.
The endless use of foul languge these days is ...... absolutely foul!

I think councils are increasingly broadening the range of activities which they outlaw under these Public Space Protection Orders and I think it is a worrying trend.

In Hackney the council seriously considered making rough sleeping a criminal offence within designated areas but, following an 80,000-strong petition, they withdrew the proposal.

Oxford prohibits people under 21 from entering a particular tower block.

Bassetlaw District Council prohibits under-16s gathering in groups of 3 or more.

Croydon is considering introducing a PSPO that covers an area of 4 kilometres in central Croydon. That area includes the council offices and critics say this could prevent people demonstrating against council proposals or decisions.

We are already in a situation where vast tracts of public space are now privately owned and policed by security guards who can issue fines just on their say-so and without any redress.

Various activities that are not normally considered to be crimes, such as busking, begging, preaching, peacefully protesting, etc. etc., can be criminalised using these orders.

I don't particularly like to hear people swearing loudly and continuously but I don't think swearing should be an offence unless it is accompanied by violent or threatening behaviour - similarly preaching, petitioning, protesting, busking, etc. etc.

I don't think it will work in principle, as thatbags so rightly points out, freedom of speech, etc., that does not prevent me from saying that I think it is a good idea, and that I resent having my shopping interspersed with the occasional foul language from people unknown to me. I grew up in a family who swore constantly, both in front of me and at me. My Mum swore, although I never heard my dad utter a bad word - and he lived on the edge of dark side of life. I worked with men most of my working life, and so again I am used to bad language, doesn't make me any the more tolerant of those folk who use it. I am of course just a miserable old .......

thatbags you say 'repeated fucks are very tiresome' ....oh, I wouldna say that !

it's probably all those new BBC types that are causing the problem.

Apparently this is now being reconsidered, as there is no clear definition as to what exactly constitutes "foul and abusive" language.

Oh good, a bit of sense. I've just seen this phrase on Twitter, by @NAChristakis, which perfectly describes what Salford Council were suggesting doing: "More privileging of subjective offense". (Yes, that is his spelling of offence; he's American).

His comment was in relation to the discovery that it is a crime in Russia, apparently, to "offend the religious feelings of believers". Just how is someone supposed to know what will offend the religious feelings of other people whose beliefs they may not even be aware of?

Not that it would make any difference if one did.

Words in themselves are foul. And bearing in mind regional differences, we all know what those words are.

I don't agree that words in themselves are foul. They can be used in a foul way of course but if a word is not being used in a foul way, it is not foul.

For example, I overheard a group of teenagers talking amongst themselves recently. Their speech to each other was littered with fucks but they were not being foul towards each other at all. Nor were they being foul about or to other people. The fucks were just teenage padding, the same in effect as some people's you knows, and likes and erms.

It's perfectly possible to be outrageously rude (foul) without using any so-called foul words. How words are used is what counts, not which words.

The words are still foul.

Would you call the words "Jesus" or "Christ" foul? Probably not and yet they can be used foully. They are not offensive in themselves.

Similarly, words like fuck and cunt have ordinary, non-foul meanings (copulate and female genital labia, for instance). It's how they are used that makes them seem foul. In short it is the usage that is foul not the words themselves.

Do NOT put the 'c' word up on here. It is truly foul. It is a word with strong connotations of violence towards women, apart from anything else.

We all know[barring regional variations] which words are foul and when they are used foully etc etc. I am not going to get pedantic on things.