It is legal to call a police horse "gay"

[Clinton Huxley]

Huzzah for the House Of Lords, bastion of common sense. They've got the stupid Public Order Act amended...

In a government climb down, the Public Order Act that covers speech and writing on signs and states: "A person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour", will be changed to remove the word insulting. The move follows a high-profile campaign which united Christian and secular groups and was spearheaded by the comedian Rowan Atkinson, the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and the former shadow home secretary David Davis.

A student was arrested for asking of a mounted policeman "Do you know your horse is gay?" because this could have been offensive to any passing gays who might have heard him.

Theresa May is still an unmitigated ass, mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ja ... order-act#

[Rum]

I am very disappointed that Labour supported the law as they think it would protect minorities. Utter shit.

[JimC]

Abusive is still potentially dodgy, depending on interpretation...

[Cormac]

I am very disappointed that Labour supported the law as they think it would protect minorities. Utter shit.

But it is completely typical of Labour, an organisation shot through with people of similar ilk to the Apelusters.

This must be very embarrassing and frustrating for sensible Labour members who are working in the real world...

[Cormac]

Abusive is still potentially dodgy, depending on interpretation...

Quite right.

The law should reflect that there is no right not to be offended. Anything other than that is a short cut to a police state.

[Clinton Huxley]

Abusive is still potentially dodgy, depending on interpretation...

Quite right.

The law should reflect that there is no right not to be offended. Anything other than that is a short cut to a police state.

basically, this. Nude Labour were just as authoritarian as the Tories.

[Pappa]

Excellent. The Lords doing what they do best.

Can we execute Theresa May?

[Clinton Huxley]

Excellent. The Lords doing what they do best.

Can we execute Theresa May?

I think so, as long as we do it politely

[Audley Strange]

The Lords seem to be intent on keeping this country from turning into Airstrip One. Unelected bastards, how dare they stop the people WE CHOSE to make these fucking insane decisions on our behalf! I for one will not be happy until these dinosaurs are replaced with honest to goodness elected Quislings, like we pay our taxes for.

[Rum]

The Lords seem to be intent on keeping this country from turning into Airstrip One. Unelected bastards, how dare they stop the people WE CHOSE to make these fucking insane decisions on our behalf! I for one will not be happy until these dinosaurs are replaced with honest to goodness elected Quislings, like we pay our taxes for.

This is why there is no perfect system. The Lords, however twattish actually perform a decent function much of the time, however unjustifiable their existence may be.

[Audley Strange]

Well we could have a house of common interest and a house of business interest. We could get Alan Sugar, and those freaks from Dragons Den to star as judges in a show called "It's the Boss" where the public vote on which members of the CBI get into power through a variety of "Britains got talent" style personal humiliations.

[Coito ergo sum]

It will continue to be illegal to use insulting language when an victim is clearly identifiable.

Still crap.

[mistermack]

From my vague recollection, there is an offence known as conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace.

I can't see why that can't be the yardstick. And the test should be whether a reasonable person is likely to be provoked to retaliate.
Not easy for a jury in every case, but what is ?

[Coito ergo sum]

From my vague recollection, there is an offence known as conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace.

I can't see why that can't be the yardstick. And the test should be whether a reasonable person is likely to be provoked to retaliate.
Not easy for a jury in every case, but what is ?

If you're talking about "fighting words" then that makes sense. If you're talking about politics and offensive views or statements, then it doesn't, because no reasonable person should react with violence because of an offensive political statement or view.

[mistermack]

From my vague recollection, there is an offence known as conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace.

I can't see why that can't be the yardstick. And the test should be whether a reasonable person is likely to be provoked to retaliate.
Not easy for a jury in every case, but what is ?

If you're talking about "fighting words" then that makes sense. If you're talking about politics and offensive views or statements, then it doesn't, because no reasonable person should react with violence because of an offensive political statement or view.

There you have it. It's not, "should" they react in a non peaceful way. It's "are they likely" to react that way, given the provocation. That would be for a jury to decide.
There is an offence here which says exactly that, " conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace ".