Shouting obscenities in public should no longer be considered offensive as teenagers and coppers have heard it all before. The judgment, which may or may not be decried as a fucking outrage by the police and other legal authorities, came from the court of appeal last week. Denzel Harvey, 20, was appealing against a £50 fine for …
There was a similar case about a decade ago in Glasgow
A cop brought "verbal abuse" charges against a footy fan at a Derby who used the "F" word - the judge just asked the cop if ever he'd used such expressions himself, yes, ah, case dismissed.
I try to not swear, mainly because there are other many other words which tend to be more effective, but I would recommend that folk look out the marvellous "Usage of the Word Fuck" - variously ascribed to Monty Python, George Carlin, Dennis Leary - but apparently the most familiar audio file was actually recorded by the Disney voice over guy Jack Wagner.
I fucking wish...
you would stop fucking swearing.
I do wonder why we have swear words. Why make a word that people aren't allowed to say it just makes no sense. I'm not saying people should swear all the time, but if I drop a heavy object on my toe and I swear, my toe should take priority over your ears.
it's quite simple, really...
...if it wasn't a swear word, it wouldn't seem quite right when you dropped something on your toe. You don't say, "oh, dandelions!", after all, do you?
Common sense at last
'Common fucking sense' surely?
and on goes the moral decline
No doubt this defense will be next used in a case of racial abuse.
Thankfully at the moment the sports I compete in do not allow foul language although youngsters often feel agreived when they get sent off or disqualified for using it. I guess it won't be long before one of them takes us to task over their human rights.
Because context doesn't matter
Clearly there's no difference between using a word abusively and using the same word as a qualifier.
I mean, we all know it's not racist if you say "go away you person with dark skin" instead of "fuck off (n-word)".
Did you read the article? Unlike you the judge can tell the difference between swearing and abuse.
Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles!
I'm sure this is judgment comes just as Tintin hits the screens and more schoolkids learn some of Captain Haddock's salty lingo.
Coppers in Oz used to try the same stunt to haul in some offenders, but about ten years ago a judge said that one couldn't be arrested for using language heard in every school yard in the country.
Although this guy should have faced prosecution over his abysmal (mis)use of the English language. Double negatives, tsk tsk, a fucking disgrace.
and that aussie magistrate
was greated with a hearty "good f***ing morning your worship" by the prosecutor who lost that case. Surprisingly the Chief Commish was unmoved by her complaints about the language
Shouting obscenities at the police should be an offense.
Only as long as the police shouting obscenities at citizens is also an offence. Such foul language I've heard coming from the lips of our much vaunted public servants directed at a poor chap who was being searched, tis a disgrace I tell thee.
And you’ld have them horse whipped no doubt.
Very fucking true
Having had a hoard of teenagers in my garden this weekend I can assure you that the language coming from my patio was nothing short of fucking fuckity fuck.
Served him right.
He started swearing at officers when they searched him, what did he think would happen, he could have complied with the officers, who found nothing anyway. Don't get me wrong, I like swearing, but all in moderation, and not at people who are going arrest you.
So a bunch of policemen (I doubt any of them actually _were_ officers, more likely they were just constables) spent some time hassling this guy over something that he had not done, and you wonder why he got a little upset with them?
Swearing *at* officers?
As far as I can see, he never even swore *at* the officers. He merely swore in their presence. Swearing *at* would have been something like "Fuck you, you racist fucking pigs!" rather than the mere colouring of his own language that is reported - i.e. "Fuck this man, I ain't been smoking nothing."; "Told you wouldn't find fuck all." and "No, I've already fucking told you."
Served him right....???
Let's see - a bunch of arseholes decided to give this guy grief, and when they didn't find any drugs they stitched him up for bad language?
Where's the outrage against a bunch of fucking cops who, just because they couldn't nail someone on one charge, still fucked him over on whatever they could use?
In this country with so many laws criminalising every one of us for something or other, I'm surprised that they had to make do with a pretty minor bad language charge.
Really, is that your standard?
First, while they are constables (all policemen, from the most junior to the Chief Constable) are constables. They are also, in normal terminology, Police Officers, nothing to do with the armed forces or the merchant navy rank system.
Secondly, why should anyone, policeman or not, have to put up with what used to be called "foul language", even if not directed at them personally, which in this case it clearly was? They may not have been distressed; but they can certainly be offended, as can other people. Perhaps using "teenagers " (who checked their age?) is not a good measure, as at that age range, many attitudes are not common to most of the population, who, surprise, are not teenagers.
Third, so you were there and evaluated the evidence and circumstances? You have got no idea on what grounds this chap was searched. Are you suggesting that police can do their job only if they are clairvoyant and so do not even need a magistrate or judge to confirm their certainty?
I suggest you move to Sudan or one of the less salubrious USA slums to get the environment you seem to long for.
You read like a 15 year old oik.
Me and a couple of mates
got told to turn out our pockets by a couple of coppers one evening after dark, back in the days of the sus law. I had a small piece of hash, loose, in one of them. I took it out, briefly showed it, then nonchalently tossed it into the nearby grass, with the explanation "huh, bit of shit" They were sure pissed off, but I didn't get nicked! I guess 'shit' isn't a swear word.
"In this country with so many laws criminalising every one of us for something or other, I'm surprised that they had to make do with a pretty minor bad language charge."
I liked Terry Pratchett's take on it, which is something like "even if you just stay inside, don't move, don't do anything, and don't say anything, we could probably get you on 'loitering with intent'".
Title says it all.
Were he to have done it in front of me and my all pre-teen children, would the appeal have succeeded? I hope not.
Queue lots of enraged comments from tards who think they should able to say what the fuckingcuntingwelllike in front of whosoever they fuckingcuntingwell please.
I'm all for trying to avoid swearing when young kids are around in order to save their parents embarrassment (is there any other reason?) but there's a huge way to go before I'd want it criminalised.
One day your kids will hear these words and one day, possibly the same day, they will use them.
If they first hear them when I am swearing in the street then, oops, sorry, didn't do it on purpose, honest but let's not waste anyone's time any further.
The idea that this might have been done "in front of you" as if all the goings on the world are presented solely to you for your benefit or detriment is just silly.
Never mind the swearing - he was unintentionally convicting himself!
"I ain't been smoking nothing!"
Translation: "I have not been smoking nothing."
Well, if you were not smoking nothing, then logic would dictate you were smoking something... :)
His constant insistence to police offiers that he did have something on them would hardly have made them stop searching, would it.
Pfff, I arks you.
Fortunately this isn't Dubai where it's considered possession just to be under the influence of a controlled substance.
Sorry but there is no such thing as a double negative in UK English. It's only the Americans that bring maths into their speech (in this respect)
Look forward to the first prisoner that starts ffing & Blinding in his honours court and gets done for contempt.
Oi Muppet Judge - try to maintain the law not reflect the downward spiral of society you moron.
Seriously even on El Reg I am disappointed you feel the need to use th F word all the time.
All I can say is ' It’s not big and it’s not clever.'
It doesn't help any attempt to be seen as a reputable source of news (with great disreputable bits).
That's not how our legal system works
Over time the idea of what is likely to cause offence, alarm or distress has changed, and could encompass a range of things. Not all that long ago showing a woman showing a bare ankle or bare arms in public might have caused alarm, offence or distress (and still would in some places abroad), so would it make sense to prosecute this as an offensive when a typical, reasonable person would not be offended by it?
It is the job of judges to apply the law to the circumstances they find before them taking into account the context; if Parliament had specific things in mind that it wanted to punish it was free to specify them in the Act. It didn't, so the judge uses his or her, er, judgment. Oh, and please don't call judges morons because you disagree with a half-arsed piece of reporting of what they decided and why they decided it.
more sense from the courts?
what is going on!
A fucking judge with a clue?
If he'd fined the coppers for wasting court time, I'd really be impressed ... but that's not going to happen. Not in today's climate ...
is a sign of an aggressive attitude, and as such should be tackled. The 'freedom' to swear at the police undermines the respect required to maintain public order and as such these mouthy gob-shites should be hauled before the beak at the earliest opportunity.
Respect is earned.
If the police were being tossers, then they deserved to be sworn at.
Actually - these police were not actually sworn at, so you fail twice.
I start from the other end, respect is a given, initially, but can easily be lost. It's possible for people to lose my respect very, very easily though.
My comment was based on the original report as carried by El Reg, which stated that the youth being searched, on several occasions, unnecessarily swore at the officers. The comment I left represents my general opinion, with an attempt to display slightly humorous tone by my ironic use of a derogatory and possibly offensive term. If you would care to explain your logic as to why "I fail twice" and just what it was I failed, I'd be more than happy to take that on board for due consideration.
Indeed. The truncheon-fondlers should instead, just beat the living shit out of the little foul mouthed scrotes with aforementioned truncheons to teach them some manners.
Finally a common fucking sense judgment from the judiciary.
With apologies to Roy Rogers
Four letter words, four letter words, they'll never let you down
They're seldom repeated, yet oft overhead
Those wonderful one-two-three-four letter words
They shouldn't be used in polite company
When ancient old ladies are sipping their tea
But just ask their husbands, you'll find sure as hell
They've not only said them, they've done them as well
Four letter words, four letter words, they'll never let you down
They're seldom repeated, yet oft overhead
Those wonderful one-two-three-four letter words
They're tried and they're tested, they're steadfast and true
You say them when other words simply won't do
They're honest and faithful right down to the end
They're our wonderful one-two-three-four letter friends!
works both ways
I'd love to hear a copper swearing back at the scum!
Guess you've not been out around chucking out time. Cops have pretty foul language themselves. Though considering what they are having to police, it's no wonder that they use the "language of the street".
Just because you've heard it before
Doesn't mean you want to hear it again.
I doubt may people like to be sworn at for doing thier jobs,regardless of the words used. We all sware given the right circumstances, but yuoof does tend to use the F and C words as ajectives to describe virtually anything, good or bad. Probably because it annoys grey haired old codgers like me, and shows them to be webbles wiv aht a cawz. The criminal element tends to do this as well, mainly because they have been caught and it makes them angry.
Use of sware words should be against the law, as a form of agression, but I doubt anyone would ever be, or ever has been, prosecuted for swaring due to accident.
Why shgould it be OK to sware at a police officer, or shop assistant, doctor, nurse, even a call centre operative, just for doing their job, no matter how irritating it is to you. It is illegal to sware at anybody, by the way, not just police officers.
Go on, ask your friends if they thinks it's Ok to sware at them.
He wasn't sworn at you stupid fuck, learn to read.
Note: you were just sworn at because I directed it at you. Using a swear word in a sentence doesn't mean you're swearing at someone.
Most REASONABLE people would take the language as aimed at or spoken to annoy them. I trust your job does not require sensitivity to anyone other than your dim self, or you must be doing very badly at it.
Just because it may be common does not make it right, inoffensive or acceptable. Theft, assault, cheating, pushing in to queues, spitting, assault, skiving work, feigning illness, sheer bad manners, careless driving, dangerous driving, idiocy, poverty are all common and visible and audible daily in any city. I still do not believe that makes them right or acceptable and, somehow, I suspect even you do not really believe so.
> Go on, ask your friends if they thinks it's Ok to sware at them.
Righto. I just did, and the general response was "fuck aye".
So that's alright then.
The guy was speaking *at* the cops, therefore the police officers were being sworn at. The specific placements of adjectives is rather immaterial.
There's a big difference between swearing at your friends, swearing at a total stranger, and swearing at the police.
Broken Window Theory
Whether bystanders are familiar or not with swearing is irrelevant IMO. This judge needs to go away and polish his wig. Swearing loudly in the street in the hearing of strangers can be threatening and intimidating, and is rightly illegal. As for swearing at the police - they are citizens too and the law applies to all.
Judges who query trivial laws like this remind me of driving testers who fail a few more candidates to generate repeat business. This judge's actions will trigger a round of pricey discussion that may enrich many in the legal profession while leading to no tangable public benefit, no wealth generation, and probably no change in the law. Sorry about the cynicism.
Re: Broken Window Theory
Police are citizens, too? Really? Not a paramilitary force, as has been put about by various members of the Met?
From the reading of the report, I'd have said it would have been quite obvious to any bystander who and where the ire was being directed, and that it was not cursing in their direction. Context is everything, Jim. So why those in earshot but utterly unaddressed should feel harrassed or assailed by what is in essence, just a sound, is beyond me, and I would have thought anyone with a modicum of temperance and reading comprehension.
And he didn't query it. He called bullshit.
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Hands on Satisfy my scroll: El Reg gets claws on Windows 8.1 spring update
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA