Man of Honour
You're essentially repeating the question here. I articulated my thoughts in a quite straightforward manner in my previous post.
Some T-Shirts are against the law!
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
You're essentially repeating the question here. I articulated my thoughts in a quite straightforward manner in my previous post.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,707
We need T-Shirts saying Zefan 4 the win.
We definitely do not need this
Soldato
No we let people walk around with a tee shirt announcing that 'Your wife is a ___' insert crude word of choice and let everyone comment or take offence as they please.
Note this is not aimed at one person here, it's just a supposition.
Note this is not aimed at one person here, it's just a supposition.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,707
We definitely do not need this
We do if he/she/unicorn doesn’t reply. I can arrange it in London if he wants.
Just outside of the congestion charge though, right?We do if he/she/unicorn doesn’t reply. I can arrange it in London if he wants.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,707
Remember the time when BoJo himself said **** Business?
Boris Johnson has refused to deny claims he used an expletive when asked about business concerns about Brexit.
The foreign secretary is reported to have used the swear word at a diplomatic gathering last week.
I think it’s fair to say **** Boris. He’s basically said **** you to the vehicle that enables us all to live. To think this is the guy who’s second in charge regarding the running of our country!
Boris Johnson has refused to deny claims he used an expletive when asked about business concerns about Brexit.
The foreign secretary is reported to have used the swear word at a diplomatic gathering last week.
I think it’s fair to say **** Boris. He’s basically said **** you to the vehicle that enables us all to live. To think this is the guy who’s second in charge regarding the running of our country!
Last edited:
Soldato
Yea except you contradicted yourself, which is why im asking for you to clarify, so you're one of those "im for free speech but...." people, thats fine.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
If that's what you got from my post, then I think we might have to have to agree to disagree. Did you miss the part in my post where I said I want a protection for free speech written in to law, untouchable by government? I understand why people might feel distressed by seeing swearing like that being displayed in public, and I am of the opinion that it isn't socially acceptable, however that doesn't mean I think it's good that people can be prosecuted for it.
Soldato
I'm on the fence with this whole thing.
I often tell other peoples kids at the park to mind their language when mine are about. I don't think it's right that 10 year olds are f'ing and blinding to their hearts content. If they were being supervised I'm sure they'd hold their tongues... but that's another issue.
I reported a user on a game that my kids play, the username repeated the c-bomb twice. It's a PEGI rated 3 game, so didn't expect to see that.
Now my kids (5 and 8) know some swear words, but they know that swearing in the house or at school is going to land them in trouble, so I encourage them not to. They know they're just words, but when they're in a world with no filter, be it other people in public, seeing it in supposedly safe games, or even out and about on graffiti or tshirts, I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle. They are just words, they'll know them and use them eventually, maybe it's not as big a deal as I think it is.
There will be a time when I have to explain what a 'cee you next tuesday' is but I'd rather not have to do that with a 5 year old.
I often tell other peoples kids at the park to mind their language when mine are about. I don't think it's right that 10 year olds are f'ing and blinding to their hearts content. If they were being supervised I'm sure they'd hold their tongues... but that's another issue.
I reported a user on a game that my kids play, the username repeated the c-bomb twice. It's a PEGI rated 3 game, so didn't expect to see that.
Now my kids (5 and 8) know some swear words, but they know that swearing in the house or at school is going to land them in trouble, so I encourage them not to. They know they're just words, but when they're in a world with no filter, be it other people in public, seeing it in supposedly safe games, or even out and about on graffiti or tshirts, I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle. They are just words, they'll know them and use them eventually, maybe it's not as big a deal as I think it is.
There will be a time when I have to explain what a 'cee you next tuesday' is but I'd rather not have to do that with a 5 year old.
I agree that language around children should be restricted. In my opinion, if that is your belief then you are not what I'd call "a free speech type".
Free speech types don't care about causing offense, often saying that "offense is completely subjective" or "offence is taken not given" and absolve themselves of all responsibility, often labelling anyone who disagrees as "the PC brigade" or *frozen water droplets that fall from the sky in winter*.
There's no way they'd accept a "...unless it offends children" caveat.
Free speech types don't care about causing offense, often saying that "offense is completely subjective" or "offence is taken not given" and absolve themselves of all responsibility, often labelling anyone who disagrees as "the PC brigade" or *frozen water droplets that fall from the sky in winter*.
There's no way they'd accept a "...unless it offends children" caveat.
Soldato
Free speech allows you to express an opinion, it has nothing to do with which words you choose to use. In my opinion.
Man of Honour
I swear like a trooper but I don't think it's right when people are walking around with sweary t-shirts - just seems uncouth.
Soldato
BUMP!
Police apologise to woman told to cover up anti-Boris Johnson T-shirt
Police have apologised to a woman who officers challenged at a Black Lives Matter demonstration for wearing an anti-Boris Johnson T-shirt and admitted that asking her to cover up the slogan on her clothing was unlawful.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...oman-told-cover-up-anti-boris-johnson-t-shirt
Police apologise to woman told to cover up anti-Boris Johnson T-shirt
Police have apologised to a woman who officers challenged at a Black Lives Matter demonstration for wearing an anti-Boris Johnson T-shirt and admitted that asking her to cover up the slogan on her clothing was unlawful.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...oman-told-cover-up-anti-boris-johnson-t-shirt
Man of Honour
Interesting, I was sure they had reasonable cause from this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5
After going in to it more deeply I'm now aware that the legislation requires an actual affected person to exist, however the police could have claimed they were those people if they wanted to justify their actions. Due to this it seems more like a PR move than a genuine admission of wrongdoing imo.
Her claim of "I'm relieved I can wear it in public without fear of being arrested" is really quite stupid. Yes, she got away with it this time because there was no one who claimed to take offense, but all it takes is one person or a police officer to do so and she would be required to cover it up or remove it.
Soldato
The police apologise just a bit too much lately in my opinion.
Soldato
Shame that other Police services thought differently when they arrested and subsequently had convicted the several people mentioned above over the Cradle T-Shirt.
It must be so hard for day to day Officers to see their hard work stamped out by a few in management who'd rather apologise than risk upset by upholding the law, as Zefan pointed out - Public Order Act 1986 section 5 para 1 (b) -
-------------------------------------------------------
Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he —
(a)uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
-------------------------------------------------------
I'd say "abusive" covers saying "**** Boris" but then again I'm not the BTP Chief Constable Paul Crowther who clearly thinks saying that is perfectly fine, so "**** Paul Crowther".
It must be so hard for day to day Officers to see their hard work stamped out by a few in management who'd rather apologise than risk upset by upholding the law, as Zefan pointed out - Public Order Act 1986 section 5 para 1 (b) -
-------------------------------------------------------
Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he —
(a)uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
-------------------------------------------------------
I'd say "abusive" covers saying "**** Boris" but then again I'm not the BTP Chief Constable Paul Crowther who clearly thinks saying that is perfectly fine, so "**** Paul Crowther".
Last edited: