3 ms·

There's section 5 of the public order act which is about saying / doing things "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" to the public, which has been int

by Joeboy 11y ago

There's section 5 of the public order act which is about saying / doing things "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" to the public, which has been interpreted as including police officers. I don't know anything about having to say things twice or it being classed as assault.

thatBilly 11y ago
There was a 2011 ruling in England where the judge said that officers were so regularly on the receiving end of the "rather commonplace" expletive that it was unlikely to cause them "harassment, alarm or distress". The Met continues to arrest people for swearing at police as they rejected the ruling. I know that Police Scotland continue to arrest people for swearing at police but I'm not sure how/if it has affected forces in England and Wales. At the time it was reported that the precedent could likely quash any future charges in similar circumstances.
DanBC 11y ago
They tried to include horses too, although the case was dropped: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/4606022.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/46060... There's 2011 advice provided to the Met which says that courts are unlikely to convict because officers are assumed to be robust: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15816761 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15816761 It's probably a bad idea to direct insults at officers (because no-one likes being called a fucking facist wanker) and results will vary by location.
chippy 11y ago
>twice I'm not sure, but I think that after the first time the officer should say "don't use that language at me" and therefore probably tells the citizen that they are causing harassment and distress. Then if they continue to do it, after the warning, it becomes an offence. So perhaps it should be "continues to use offensive language after a warning about the language has been given".

by Joeboy 11y ago

thatBilly 11y ago

There was a 2011 ruling in England where the judge said that officers were so regularly on the receiving end of the "rather commonplace" expletive that it was unlikely to cause them "harassment, alarm or distress". The Met continues to arrest people for swearing at police as they rejected the ruling. I know that Police Scotland continue to arrest people for swearing at police but I'm not sure how/if it has affected forces in England and Wales. At the time it was reported that the precedent could likely quash any future charges in similar circumstances.

DanBC 11y ago

They tried to include horses too, although the case was dropped: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/4606022.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/46060... There's 2011 advice provided to the Met which says that courts are unlikely to convict because officers are assumed to be robust: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15816761 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15816761 It's probably a bad idea to direct insults at officers (because no-one likes being called a fucking facist wanker) and results will vary by location.

chippy 11y ago

>twice I'm not sure, but I think that after the first time the officer should say "don't use that language at me" and therefore probably tells the citizen that they are causing harassment and distress. Then if they continue to do it, after the warning, it becomes an offence. So perhaps it should be "continues to use offensive language after a warning about the language has been given".