Woman told by police to cover up her F*** BORIS T shirt.

So should wearing clothes with offensive slogans out in public be a chargable offence?


"An actor was stopped in the street by a police officer because she was wearing a strongly worded t-shirt.
Jessi-Lu Flynn was on Regents Street, London on Wednesday having just left the Black Lives Matter march.

The Shepherds Bush woman was stopped by a police officer who accused her of breaching the Public Order Act by wearing a t-shirt which read 'F*** Boris'.
In a video of the incident the actor and director asks the officer: "You think it's illegal for me to have this t-shirt on?"
The officer argues that it is "an offense to wear signs, visible representation that is likely to cause harassment on the streets."When Ms Flynn asks the officer who would be harassed by it, the officer says "people will find it offensive".

Eventually, after a further minute or so of back and forth, Ms Flynn agreed to zip her hoodie up.
The 1986 Public Order Act was amended in 2013 so it falls into line with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights."




https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/woman-stopped-police-officer-wearing-22145575

It is clearly in breach of the law.

Syl wrote:So should wearing clothes with offensive slogans out in public be a chargable offence?


"An actor was stopped in the street by a police officer because she was wearing a strongly worded t-shirt.
Jessi-Lu Flynn was on Regents Street, London on Wednesday having just left the Black Lives Matter march.

The Shepherds Bush woman was stopped by a police officer who accused her of breaching the Public Order Act by wearing a t-shirt which read 'F*** Boris'.
In a video of the incident the actor and director asks the officer: "You think it's illegal for me to have this t-shirt on?"
The officer argues that it is "an offense to wear signs, visible representation that is likely to cause harassment on the streets."When Ms Flynn asks the officer who would be harassed by it, the officer says "people will find it offensive".

Eventually, after a further minute or so of back and forth, Ms Flynn agreed to zip her hoodie up.
The 1986 Public Order Act was amended in 2013 so it falls into line with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights."




https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/woman-stopped-police-officer-wearing-22145575

I think people should be allowed to wear things like that in public. But remember, free speech and expression is a two street. She shouldn't be surprised if someone walks be and calls her a dumb bitch.

Syl wrote:So should wearing clothes with offensive slogans out in public be a chargable offence?

If you can't fight words in the market place, as Thomas Jefferson said, maybe you're on the wrong side.

I have had a think about this...

Adults should be able to wear what they like where they like....but that also relies on people knowing that sometimes there are boundaries….and obviously some people have a skewed idea of where boundaries lie.

You wouldn't go to work in an office in a bikini, or show up to teach a class with "ALL KIDS ARE C***'S" on your T shirt would you??

But if there was no law that prevented this some oddballs just may.

So...there has to be a rule that prevents extreme form of dress being worn in public.

FUCK BORIS crosses that line, I reckon the copper was right....AND he was polite.

Syl wrote:I have had a think about this...

Adults should be able to wear what they like where they like....but that also relies on people knowing that sometimes there are boundaries….and obviously some people have a skewed idea of where boundaries lie.

You wouldn't go to work in an office in a bikini, or show up to teach a class with "ALL KIDS ARE C***'S" on your T shirt would you??

But if there was no law that prevented this some oddballs just may.

So...there has to be a rule that prevents extreme form of dress being worn in public.

FUCK BORIS crosses that line, I reckon the copper was right....AND he was polite.

As long as you have strong private property laws, which you dont, she could be kept out of most buildings by the property owners.

It would relegate her to just walking around the street. No doubt people would see her still, but I think the problem would take care of itself.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:I have had a think about this...

Adults should be able to wear what they like where they like....but that also relies on people knowing that sometimes there are boundaries….and obviously some people have a skewed idea of where boundaries lie.

You wouldn't go to work in an office in a bikini, or show up to teach a class with "ALL KIDS ARE C***'S" on your T shirt would you??

But if there was no law that prevented this some oddballs just may.

So...there has to be a rule that prevents extreme form of dress being worn in public.

FUCK BORIS crosses that line, I reckon the copper was right....AND he was polite.

As long as you have strong private property laws, which you dont, she could be kept out of most buildings by the property owners.  

It would relegate her to just walking around the street. No doubt people would see her still, but I think the problem would take care of itself.

Yeah Maybe.
I imagine in the UK most people would just ignore her, we see worse on a daily basis.....not sure how parents with young kids would feel if they ask why some random woman is walking round with a forbidden word emblazoned on her top though.

Syl wrote:I have had a think about this...

Adults should be able to wear what they like where they like....but that also relies on people knowing that sometimes there are boundaries….and obviously some people have a skewed idea of where boundaries lie.

You wouldn't go to work in an office in a bikini, or show up to teach a class with "ALL KIDS ARE C***'S" on your T shirt would you??

But if there was no law that prevented this some oddballs just may.

So...there has to be a rule that prevents extreme form of dress being worn in public.

FUCK BORIS crosses that line, I reckon the copper was right....AND he was polite.

What is the boundary? If I am the government, and I can declare certain words off-limits...why can't I declare certain political parties off-limits? Indeed, why can't I declare certain races off-limits, and stoke up the ovens?

Any limitations are artificial. But here in America we have declared certain rights to exist, and written them down as the Bill of Rights. I understand that the UK has variations, particularly on freedom of speech.

But compromising so important a right to our democratic spirit as speech, seems such a sell-out to the whole system. I would rather endure an occasional f*** now and again, if it permits us to declare: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Section 5 of the "Public Order Act 1986 (ammended 2013)"


5 - Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [F1or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place

The cop read out the public order act to her as quoted above, she still tried to act dumb.

In the end she covered up, I thought the cop, who was simply doing his duty, acted  very properly.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I have had a think about this...

Adults should be able to wear what they like where they like....but that also relies on people knowing that sometimes there are boundaries….and obviously some people have a skewed idea of where boundaries lie.

You wouldn't go to work in an office in a bikini, or show up to teach a class with "ALL KIDS ARE C***'S" on your T shirt would you??

But if there was no law that prevented this some oddballs just may.

So...there has to be a rule that prevents extreme form of dress being worn in public.

FUCK BORIS crosses that line, I reckon the copper was right....AND he was polite.

What is the boundary?  If I am the government, and I can declare certain words off-limits...why can't I declare certain political parties off-limits?  Indeed, why can't I declare certain races off-limits, and stoke up the ovens?

Any limitations are artificial.  But here in America we have declared certain rights to exist, and written them down as the Bill of Rights.  I understand that the UK has variations, particularly on freedom of speech.

But compromising so important a right to our democratic spirit as speech, seems such a sell-out to the whole system.  I would rather endure an occasional f*** now and again, if it permits us to declare: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

That's the thing about freedom isn't it?
There is no such thing as complete freedom of speech or action, there has to be boundaries.
Hopefully if one lives in a democratic and civilised  country the laws regarding how far people can be free are there for the overall good of society, not to create inequality and discord.

I agree with Syl, it’s okay to wear any words you like across your chest but only in certain circumstances.
For instance, Ben bought me a t-shirt that says “Save a horse, ride a cowboy” that I wouldn’t wear to take my daughter to school.

eddie wrote:I agree with Syl, it’s okay to wear any words you like across your chest but only in certain circumstances.
For instance, Ben bought me a t-shirt that says “Save a horse, ride a cowboy” that I wouldn’t wear to take my daughter to school.

@ Ben: that's clever.

Meh...personal taste dictates that you wouldn't wear the T-shirt to a school function, eds. Probably me too. But I'm talking about laws. I don’t think issues of personal taste should be incorporated in law.

It may be a matter of interpretation: the officer said it is "likely to cause harassment". To whom? I don't feel harassed. I would give her a wink & a nod of agreement, and walk past.

eddie wrote:I agree with Syl, it’s okay to wear any words you like across your chest but only in certain circumstances.
For instance, Ben bought me a t-shirt that says “Save a horse, ride a cowboy” that I wouldn’t wear to take my daughter to school.

Hahaha....did Ben have that T shirt commissioned just for you?

Swear words are not allowed to be broadcast on TV until after 9.00pm... so it is unacceptable to have one emblazoned across a t shirt and walking around with it on a busy street in London...


And it is against the law.

+1

Tommy Monk wrote:

Swear words are not allowed to be broadcast on TV until after 9.00pm... so it is unacceptable to have one emblazoned across a t shirt and walking around with it on a busy street in London...

And it is against the law.

The officer said "it's likely to cause harassment".  Apparently, that is the law...at least the law he was talking about.  What is it we used to sing: sticks and stones, may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

Whatever the law in London, we have our First Amendment.  Any prior restraint is prohibited, and the rest is limited to reasonable time & place restrictions.  Frankly, when it comes to free speech and open democracy, I like our system better.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Swear words are not allowed to be broadcast on TV until after 9.00pm... so it is unacceptable to have one emblazoned across a t shirt and walking around with it on a busy street in London...

And it is against the law.

The officer said "it's likely to cause harassment".  Apparently, that is the law...at least the law he was talking about.  What is it we used to sing: sticks and stones, may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

Whatever the law in London, we have our First Amendment.  Any prior restraint is prohibited, and the rest is limited to reasonable time & place restrictions.  Frankly, when it comes to free speech and open democracy, I like our system better.

So who decides what is reasonable then?

When I was Young ,if some foul mouthed scum said Fuck in front of my kids I'd deck 'em, and I have done !

nicko wrote:When I was Young ,if some foul mouthed scum said Fuck in front of my kids I'd deck 'em, and I have done !

Nicko, I worked in night clubs for years. If any customer ever used strong language they were asked to stop. If they didn't they were out.
If anyone actually swore AT the staff, the bouncers would deal with them.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The officer said "it's likely to cause harassment".  Apparently, that is the law...at least the law he was talking about.  What is it we used to sing: sticks and stones, may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

Whatever the law in London, we have our First Amendment.  Any prior restraint is prohibited, and the rest is limited to reasonable time & place restrictions.  Frankly, when it comes to free speech and open democracy, I like our system better.

So who decides what is reasonable then?

A court.  They ask any civic entity or state that passes such a law, to state the reason.  If it doesn't cut it, or there is a reasonable less-onerous alternative, the court will strike the law down.

Syl wrote:

nicko wrote:When I was Young ,if some foul mouthed scum said Fuck in front of my kids I'd deck 'em, and I have done !

Nicko, I worked in night clubs for years. If any customer ever used strong language they were asked to stop. If they didn't they were out.
If anyone actually swore AT the staff, the bouncers would deal with them.

The First Amendment is only a prohibition against political entities passing laws, or appointed officials/police, etc., interpreting them.  If some father, or a bouncer wants to stop someone from swearing, that's their business. If it becomes physical, they could be sued. But that does not involve the First Amendment.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

So who decides what is reasonable then?

A court.  They ask any civic entity or state that passes such a law, to state the reason.  If it doesn't cut it, or there is a reasonable less-onerous alternative, the court will strike the law down.

In that case i prefer our own system.
One size fits all, everyone knows where they stand.

Section 5 of the "Public Order Act 1986 (ammended 2013)"

As quoted in Tommys post earlier

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A court.  They ask any civic entity or state that passes such a law, to state the reason.  If it doesn't cut it, or there is a reasonable less-onerous alternative, the court will strike the law down.

In that case i prefer our own system.
One size fits all, everyone knows where they stand.

Section 5 of the "Public Order Act 1986 (ammended 2013)"

As quoted in Tommys post earlier

The reason why I prefer out system is, words don't hurt anyone. But the power to prohibit speech can be used to inhibit political causes, and I've seen the UK do just that. That's not freedom; our system is.

Words belong in the marketplace of ideas and expressions, where they can be responded to openly. We had too many dictators stifling speech last century.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
In that case i prefer our own system.
One size fits all, everyone knows where they stand.

Section 5 of the "Public Order Act 1986 (ammended 2013)"

As quoted in Tommys post earlier

The reason why I prefer out system is, words don't hurt anyone.  But the power to prohibit speech can be used to inhibit political causes, and I've seen the UK do just that.  That's not freedom; our system is.

Words belong in the marketplace of ideas and expressions, where they can be responded to openly.  We had too many dictators stifling speech last century.

Well then Quill, you prefer your system and i prefer mine, so it seems we are both living in the right place for us.

Night.x

G'nite.

Anyone is free to express their opinions in this country - although the words you choose to use to do that can be censured which is I believe a pretty fair system, your view can be put across without recourse to foul language or insults.

"F*** Boris"??

Too many women have already done that.

Which is why he has so many kids.

I think the government had better have a damn good reason for not allowing people to do as they wish, and I can't see the compelling reason for banning t-shirts like this.

I have a t-shirt that edds bought me (one of my favorites and I'm wearing it now) that reads at the top, "Zen as Fuck." I've worn it on school runs. My stepdaughter has seen it and giggled, and I always blame her mother

We swear in front of her and her friends -- not excessively so, but we don't censor ourselves. We caught them using some of the same words excessively not too long ago, and we talked to our girl about how it's something everyone has done, but also how swearing just for the sake of it is a bit trashy.

At the end of the day, they're just words, after all, that we use to communicate. I don't believe in shutting down communication or expression unless someone is advocating harm to another.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I agree with Syl, it’s okay to wear any words you like across your chest but only in certain circumstances.
For instance, Ben bought me a t-shirt that says “Save a horse, ride a cowboy” that I wouldn’t wear to take my daughter to school.

@ Ben: that's clever.  

Meh...personal taste dictates that you wouldn't wear the T-shirt to a school function, eds.  Probably me too.  But I'm talking about laws.  I don’t think issues of personal taste should be incorporated in law.

It may be a matter of interpretation: the officer said it is "likely to cause harassment".  To whom?  I don't feel harassed.  I would give her a wink & a nod of agreement, and walk past.

I stand corrected. It shouldn’t be against the law, I agree, but school functions? Not for me.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The reason why I prefer out system is, words don't hurt anyone.  But the power to prohibit speech can be used to inhibit political causes, and I've seen the UK do just that.  That's not freedom; our system is.

Words belong in the marketplace of ideas and expressions, where they can be responded to openly.  We had too many dictators stifling speech last century.

Well then Quill, you prefer your system and i prefer mine, so it seems we are both living in the right place for us.

Night.x

We would prefer that you take him.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
Well then Quill, you prefer your system and i prefer mine, so it seems we are both living in the right place for us.

Night.x

We would prefer that you take him.

Speaking for myself, I have never taken any man against his will.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The reason why I prefer out system is, words don't hurt anyone.  But the power to prohibit speech can be used to inhibit political causes, and I've seen the UK do just that.  That's not freedom; our system is.

Words belong in the marketplace of ideas and expressions, where they can be responded to openly.  We had too many dictators stifling speech last century.

Well then Quill, you prefer your system and i prefer mine, so it seems we are both living in the right place for us.

Night.x

We would prefer that you take him.

Who's "we," do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Should the UK take Quill because you often disagree with him, even though you agree with him here?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
In that case i prefer our own system.
One size fits all, everyone knows where they stand.

Section 5 of the "Public Order Act 1986 (ammended 2013)"

As quoted in Tommys post earlier

The reason why I prefer out system is, words don't hurt anyone. But the power to prohibit speech can be used to inhibit political causes, and I've seen the UK do just that. That's not freedom; our system is.

Words belong in the marketplace of ideas and expressions, where they can be responded to openly. We had too many dictators stifling speech last century.

The problem with the t-shirt was the word 'fuck' on it... Not the display of the opinion that she disapproved of Boris...


The t-shirt could have said... 'down with boris'... Or 'boris out'... etc...

Why should the word “fuck” not be allowed?

eddie wrote:Why should the word “fuck” not be allowed?

Agreed. If it said something repulsive like "Death to Boris" I'd feel differently, but there's no justifiable reason to tell people how they may and may not express their feelings.

Why is the word "cùnt" censored on here...!?


Hypocrisy anyone...???


geranium

Prime example of lefty quantum thinking...!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Why should the word “fuck” not be allowed?

Agreed. If it said something repulsive like "Death to Boris" I'd feel differently, but there's no justifiable reason to tell people how they may and may not express their feelings.

Well?

Is it the word 'fuck'  that is the problem, or the joining it with Boris?

What do the right wingers on her think of a sweat shirt emblazoned with the words 'Fuck Corbyn' , for example?

Tommy Monk wrote:


Why is the word "cùnt" censored on here...!?


Hypocrisy anyone...???


geranium

Good question Tommy.

Why should the C word be censored on a forum one has to take the trouble to seek out and read, yet the F word should not be censored in the street where it would be visible to passing youngsters and people who find it offensive?

I don't know Syl... Better ask Ben and Eddie who wrote this...

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Why should the word “fuck” not be allowed?

Agreed. If it said something repulsive like "Death to Boris" I'd feel differently, but there's no justifiable reason to tell people how they may and may not express their feelings.

But don't allow certain words here on this forum...


Especially as Ben said the bit highlighted!

Tommy Monk wrote:


Section 5 of the "Public Order Act 1986 (ammended 2013)"


5 - Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [F1or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

[b](b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place[/b]

that's worrying

that implies that she could be wearing out in her own back garden but if some neighbour saw her from their window and decided to get arsey alarmed about it then she could still get done

that's going a bit far imo if that's the case

I doubt very much that the law is to be used to stop you wearing that t shirt in your own back garden...


However if you were walking around with one saying "my neighbours are cünts" then the law could maybe be used for police action for that...

Tommy Monk wrote:


I doubt very much that the law is to be used to stop you wearing that t shirt in your own back garden...


However if you were walking around with one saying "my neighbours are cünts" then the law could maybe be used for police action for that...

hahhahahahahaha

not sure why i found that so funny but it was

Tommy Monk wrote:


Why is the word "cùnt" censored on here...!?


Hypocrisy anyone...???


geranium

It was a couple of female posters on here who felt it offensive.
I wasn’t one of them. It’s a great word.

Tommy Monk wrote:

I don't know Syl... Better ask Ben and Eddie who wrote this...

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Why should the word “fuck” not be allowed?

Agreed. If it said something repulsive like "Death to Boris" I'd feel differently, but there's no justifiable reason to tell people how they may and may not express their feelings.

But don't allow certain words here on this forum...


Especially as Ben said the bit highlighted!

You might also notice that you don't get to vote for your admins, you don't pay taxes and I'm neither creating a military to protect you nor paying for your health care

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Why is the word "cùnt" censored on here...!?


Hypocrisy anyone...???


geranium

It was a couple of female posters on here who felt it offensive.
I wasn’t one of them. It’s a great word.

I think it was more than a couple of female posters who objected, and that was because one male poster was forever using the word against us in a mysoginistic, highly offensive way and nothing was done to stop him.

You wouldn't have objected Eddie, he made sure he didn't call it you....possibly because Ben would not have stood for it.